The domicile of a minor, as a general rule, is that of his father. Hatcher v. Hatcher, 206 Okl. 471, 244 P.2d 580. A domicile once established is presumed to continue until a new one is established.
" See also Hatcher v. Hatcher, 206 Okla. 471, 244 P.2d 580, wherein the children were legally returned to the jurisdiction of the District Court which entered the original divorce decree. The general rule appears to be that if a court of a sister state enters a valid and binding order or judgment concerning the custody of minor children, such order or judgment will be recognized by the courts of this state as a matter of comity, and the courts of this state will not assume or exercise jurisdiction to relitigate the question as to custody unless the child or children are lawfully and legally within this state. If such were not the general rule, there could be no orderly administration of the law, judgments of courts would be entitled to no respect, and any disappointed litigant, in order to procure another hearing, would need only to forcibly take a child into another state.
The best interest of the children is always the prime consideration in child custody cases and where it appears the trial court has not abused its discretion in the matter this Court will not reverse his judgment. Phillips v. Phillips, Okla., 267 P.2d 597; Hatcher v. Hatcher, 206 Okla. 471, 244 P.2d 580. What was proper here was a very close question but no doubt the fact that the children would be close to their maternal grandparents and would continue to live in the area where they had many relatives and friends weighed heavily with the trial judge. Also the custody of children in a divorce proceeding is subject to change at any time.
"The foregoing cases are also authority for the rule that a judgment of a sister state in a divorce proceeding, awarding the care and custody of a minor child, is not, under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution, Article 4, § 1, binding in a habeas corpus proceeding upon the courts in this state, to which either parent has removed." Hatcher v. Hatcher, 206 Okla. 471, 244 P.2d 580, holds under the facts there shown that the judgment of another state awarding custody of children as between divorced parents is not binding upon the Oklahoma Courts under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution, art. 4, § 1. The record shows that the plaintiff, Mathews, has paid no part of the sums awarded his wife in 1953 by the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas for the support of their minor children, nor paid any part of the alimony, attorney fees and costs adjudged against him in that case, although his wage at the time of the hearing in the present action was $75 to $100 per week, according to his testimony.
While there is a diversity of opinion, we believe the majority rule, as gained from these cases, is that, where the one against whom the order is made is before the court, after having been lawfully served with personal summons in the case, that court has the power to order such parent to support his child, even though the child is not physically present within the state where the award of support is made. See: Pieretti v. Pieretti, 13 N. J. Misc., 98, 176 A. 589; Krasnow v. Krasnow, 140 Conn. 254, 99 A.2d 104; Ex parte Kolb, 60 Cal.App. 198, at p. 200, 212 P. 645, at p. 646; Dolgoff v. Dolgoff, 81 Cal.2d 146, at p. 151, 183 P.2d 380, at p. 383; Hatcher v. Hatcher, 206 Okla. 271, 244 P.2d 580; Woollett v. Woollett, 57 N. M., 550, 260 P.2d 913; James v. James, 64 Fla. (2d), 534, 64 So.2d 534; Beggs v. Beggs, 208 Ga. 415, at p. 416, 67 S.E.2d 135, at p. 137; Smith v. Smith, 138 W. Va. 388, 76 S.E.2d 253; State, ex rel. Stoffey, v. La Driere, Judge (Mo.App.), 273 S.W.2d 776. Some of the above cases consider only the question of custody; but we believe that a necessary part of custody of a minor child is the right to support for that minor, if the order of custody is in favor of the mother, the father of a child being primarily liable for support.