Harp v. Harp

9 Citing cases

  1. Somerville v. Somerville

    306 S.W.2d 301 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957)   Cited 5 times
    In Somerville v. Somerville, Ky., 306 S.W.2d 301, we stated: 'When the evidence is conflicting, much weight is given to the Chancellor's decision, and after weighing the evidence, the judgment will be reversed only when we are convinced that he was in error.

    In all cases concerning children of tender years, a mother will be deprived of the custody of the child only when she is shown to be a person unfit to have such custody or is unable to provide a suitable home. Bowman v. Bowman, 310 Ky. 509, 221 S.W.2d 71; Harp v. Harp, 314 Ky. 618, 236 S.W.2d 698. The welfare of the child is the determining factor concerned. Clark v. Clark, 298 Ky. 18, 181 S.W.2d 397. The Chancellor has a wide discretion in such cases.

  2. Renfro v. Renfro

    291 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956)   Cited 27 times
    In Renfro v. Renfro, Ky., 291 S.W.2d 46, we held that, in cases involving the custody of infant children, a mother will be deprived of their custody only when she is shown to be a person unfit to have their custody or is unable to provide a suitable home.

    In all cases concerning children of tender years, a mother will be deprived of the custody of the child only when she is shown to be a person unfit to have such custody or is unable to provide a suitable home. Bowman v. Bowman, 310 Ky. 509, 221 S.W.2d 71; Harp v. Harp, 314 Ky. 618, 236 S.W.2d 698. The welfare of the child is the determining factor concerned. Clark v. Clark, 298 Ky. 18, 181 S.W.2d 397. The Chancellor has a wide discretion in such cases.

  3. Liles v. Liles

    432 S.W.2d 814 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 3 times

    Runge v. Runge, 307 Ky. 752, 212 S.W.2d 275. It is deemed in the best interest of the children for the mother to have custody unless she is a person of unfit character or cannot provide a suitable home. Bowman v. Bowman, 310 Ky. 509, 221 S.W.2d 71; Harp v. Harp, 314 Ky. 618, 236 S.W.2d 698. The basis of the award in this case was that appellant, the mother, had not demonstrated her fitness. As above mentioned, the mother had full-time employment. For approximately a two-year period prior to the commencement of this action the father kept a running written account of her activities.

  4. Gates v. Gates

    412 S.W.2d 223 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 26 times
    Rejecting party's argument that a post-divorce order regarding various issues including counseling was not a final and appealable order as: "When, by the exercise of its continuing jurisdiction, the family court enters an order regarding a minor child's care and custody, that order โ€˜is an appealable order and this Court may review it.โ€™ "

    It is obvious that the trial court will be informed in the event there are actions or circumstances which appear not to be in the best interest of the children, whereupon it has the power to exercise appropriate control. Harp v. Harp, 314 Ky. 618, 236 S.W.2d 698. For the reasons indicated herein, the order denying a change of custody entered on the 27th day of September, 1966, is affirmed.

  5. Melemore v. McLemore

    346 S.W.2d 722 (Ky. Ct. App. 1961)   Cited 13 times
    In McLemore v. McLemore, 346 S.W.2d 722, 92 A.L.R.2d 691 (Ky.Ct.App. 1961), an award of joint custody which shifted three young children every week was terminated because of the intolerable burden such frequent, though equal, shifts placed on the children.

    Riggins v. Riggins, 216 Ky. 281, 287 S.W. 715; Clark v. Clark, 298 Ky. 18, 181 S.W.2d 397; Renfro v. Renfro, Ky., 291 S.W.2d 46; Hatfield v. Derossett, Ky., 339 S.W.2d 631. Especially is this true in the case of young girls. Bowman v. Bowman, 310 Ky. 509, 221 S.W.2d 71; Harp v. Harp, 314 Ky. 618, 236 S.W.2d 698; Hatfield v. Derossett, Ky., 325 S.W.2d 84. Ordinarily the Court does not look with favor upon split custody of small children.

  6. Wilkey v. Glisson

    303 S.W.2d 266 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957)   Cited 8 times

    Renfro v. Renfro, Ky., 291 S.W.2d 46. Under the evidence in this case we are not convinced that the Chancellor erred in awarding the child to the father. As was pointed out in Harp v. Harp, 314 Ky. 618, 236 S.W.2d 698, the court retains jurisdiction to enter any future order relating to the child's custody as may be deemed proper at that time. Judgment affirmed.

  7. Estes v. Estes

    299 S.W.2d 785 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957)   Cited 1 times

    We have held that where a mother has been guilty of past indiscretions, but has reformed and is leading an upright life, the court will not let her past brand her as unfit to rear her children. Harp v. Harp, 314 Ky. 618, 236 S.W.2d 698. See also 27 C.J.S., Divorce, ยง 309(e).

  8. Kelien v. Kelien

    273 S.W.2d 360 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954)   Cited 6 times

    We have written in several cases that acts of indiscretion by a wife with a man she marries shortly after being divorced, where there was no evidence of promiscuity, did not brand her as unfit to have the custody of a young child. Ruttencutter v. Ruttencutter, 293 Ky. 556, 169 S.W.2d 604; Clark v. Clark, 298 Ky. 18, 181 S.W.2d 397; Price v. Price, 306 Ky. 214, 206 S.W.2d 924; Hager v. Hager, 309 Ky. 803, 219 S.W.2d 10; Bowman v. Bowman, 310 Ky. 509, 221 S.W.2d 71; Harp v. Harp, 314 Ky. 618, 236 S.W.2d 698; Sparkman v. Sparkman, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 20. Counsel for appellant ask us to lay down a rule distinguishing between an unquestioned act of immorality and a questionable one, where there is no evidence of promiscuity, which will brand a mother as an unfit person to have the custody of her young child.

  9. Grider v. Grider

    254 S.W.2d 714 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953)

    In affirming the Chancellor, we are not unmindful of the rule that the custody of a child of tender years will be awarded to the mother unless it be made to appear she is not a suitable person and that when a mother has been indiscreet in her youth but has reformed, we will not let her past brand her as an unfit person to rear her child. Harp v. Harp, 314 Ky. 618, 236 S.W.2d 698, and cases cited therein. It appears that the Chancellor had these legal principles in mind when he reached his conclusions and we think the record supports his judgment. The court retains control of the action, and the fact the Chancellor has already modified the judgment on three occasions indicates he is giving careful attention to the case.