Cooper v. Cooper

2 Citing cases

  1. Blankenship v. Blankenship

    247 P.2d 542 (Wash. 1952)

    We are of the opinion that this is a case in which the trial court's well intentioned and justifiable efforts to promote a reconciliation "backfired" by reason of the attitude of the parties and the taking of an appeal, which "froze" the situation and made any modification of the decree impossible during the pendency of the appeal, unless remanded by this court for that purpose. Walkow v. Walkow, 36 Wn.2d 510, 219 P.2d 108 (1950); Cooper v. Cooper, 39 Wn.2d 28, 234 P.2d 492 (1951). Any disposition we might make of the case would be a futile gesture in view of the changed conditions of the parties, which would warrant the immediate filing of a petition for modification by one or both of the parties.

  2. Richardson v. Richardson

    72 Idaho 19 (Idaho 1951)   Cited 24 times

    In determining the custody of a minor child, the child's welfare and best interests are the primary, paramount and controlling considerations by which the courts should be guided. Krieger v. Krieger, 59 Idaho 301, 81 P.2d 1081; Roosma v. Moots, 62 Idaho 450, 112 P.2d 1000; Maudlin v. Maudlin, 68 Idaho 64, 65, 188 P.2d 323; Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, Cal.App., 233 P.2d 639; Cooper v. Cooper, Wash., 234 P.2d 492. A young child, particularly a girl, needs the sympathy, affection, consideration and the tender care which only a mother can give, and courts will not deprive mother of custody of her child unless it is shown clearly that she is so unfit a person as to endanger child's welfare.