Lynn v. Lynn

5 Citing cases

  1. Manhart v. Manhart

    1986 OK 12 (Okla. 1986)   Cited 58 times

    In fixing the primary custody of a minor child in a divorce action, the best interest of the child must be the paramount concern of the court. Frankovich v. Frankovich, 459 P.2d 583 (Okla. 1969); Duncan v. Duncan, 449 P.2d 267 (Okla. 1969); Lynn v. Lynn, 443 P.2d 106 (Okla. 1968); Waller v. Waller, 439 P.2d 952 (Okla. 1968). If the trial court's judgment, awarding primary custody, is not against the clear weight of the evidence concerning the best interests of the children, it will not be grounds for reversal. Gamble v. Gamble, 477 P.2d 383 (Okla. 1970); Ness v. Ness, 357 P.2d 973 (Okla. 1960).

  2. Pirrong v. Pirrong

    1976 OK 36 (Okla. 1976)   Cited 21 times

    In order for the other parent to gain custody it must be shown that he or she is a fit person and there must be a showing of material, permanent, and substantial change in the circumstances or conditions of the parties which affect the children to a substantial or material extent. Lynn v. Lynn, 443 P.2d 106 (Okla. 1968); Gilbert v. Gilbert, 460 P.2d 929 (Okla. 1969); Walker v. Walker, supra. The trial court should give paramount consideration to the best interest of the children in determining custody.

  3. David v. David

    1969 OK 164 (Okla. 1969)   Cited 11 times
    In David v. David, 460 P.2d 116, 117 (Okla. 1969), we said "The law is clear that in a hearing upon a motion to modify the burden is upon the applicant to show a substantial change in conditions since the entry of the last order or decree which bears directly upon the welfare and best interest of the child."

    The law is clear that in a hearing upon a motion to modify the burden is upon the applicant to show a substantial change in conditions since entry of the last order or decree which bears directly upon the welfare and best interest of the child. Gibbons v. Gibbons, supra; Young v. Young, Okla., 383 P.2d 211; Ness v. Ness, Okla., 357 P.2d 973; Stanfield v. Stanfield, Okla., 350 P.2d 261. The trial court found that there was not a substantial change in conditions so as to effect a change of custody of the minor child. It is well established that the action of the trial court in refusing to modify a child custody order will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is so clearly against the weight of the evidence as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Lynn v. Lynn, Okla., 443 P.2d 106. In reviewing the evidence we find that the trial court has not abused its discretion and that its decision is clearly not against the weight of the evidence.

  4. Shaw v. Hoedebeck

    948 P.2d 1240 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997)   Cited 19 times

    ΒΆ 12 It must be noted that custody orders will not be disturbed on appeal unless found to be against the clear weight of the evidence. Carpenter v. Carpenter, supra, Lynn v. Lynn, 443 P.2d 106 (Okla. 1968), Manhart v. Manhart, 725 P.2d 1234 (Okla. 1986).

  5. Newell v. Nash

    889 P.2d 345 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994)   Cited 7 times

    Carpenter v. Carpenter, 645 P.2d 476 (Okla. 1982); Lynn v. Lynn, 443 P.2d 106 (Okla. 1968); Manhart v. Manhart, 725 P.2d 1234 (Okla. 1986).