Rasmussen v. Rasmussen

10 Citing cases

  1. Thompson v. Thompson

    238 Minn. 41 (Minn. 1952)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that in a custody proceeding, parent should have opportunity to cross examine and refute testimony and recommendations in social agency reports

    "* * * In the absence of a showing that some change in the condition of things has occurred subsequent to the entry of a decree of divorce which awards the custody of a minor child to one of its parents, or that there has been some misconduct on the part of the one having the custody, the decision of the court awarding the custody of a minor child is final and can not be modified by the court rendering it. See Merges v. Merges, 94 Or. 246 ( 186 P. 36); Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 113 Or. 146 ( 231 P. 964); Ellenburg v. Woodson, 131 Or. 440 ( 283 P. 27); Sachs v. Sachs, 145 Or. 23 ( 25 P.2d 159, 26 P.2d 780). And when an order changing the custody of a minor child is made, it can be done only after notice and an opportunity to be heard has been awarded to the parties and an order made and entered in the suit."

  2. Leverich v. Leverich

    152 P.2d 303 (Or. 1944)   Cited 26 times
    In Leverich v. Leverich, 175 Or. 174, 152 P.2d 303, the plaintiff had procured a divorce from his wife who had left him to live with another man. He was awarded custody of their daughter, eight years old. Three years later, the divorced wife, who had remarried, sought a modification of the decree to give her custody of the child.

    Such children, however, become, in a sense, wards of court, and, in determining which party should have their custody, the court must always consider primarily their welfare. McKissick v.McKissick, 93 Or. 644, 653, 174 P. 721, 184 P. 272; Merges v. Merges, 94 Or. 246, 186 P. 36; Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 113 Or. 146, 231 P. 964; Borigo v. Borigo, supra ( 142 Or. 46, 18 P.2d 810); Henry v. Henry, 156 Or. 679, 69 P.2d 280. In the instant case, the evidence indicates that the defendant, after informing her husband that she no longer loved him, but, on the contrary, had become enamoured of another man, left his home, accompanied the other man to California, and cohabited with him there for a considerable time prior to the securing of a divorce by her husband.

  3. Bestel v. Bestel

    153 Or. 100 (Or. 1936)   Cited 17 times
    In Bestel v. Bestel, 153 Or. 100, 108, 44 P.2d 1078, 53 P.2d 525, it was held that an order changing the custody of a minor child can only be made after notice and an opportunity to be heard.

    In the absence of a showing that some change in the condition of things has occurred subsequent to the entry of a decree of divorce which awards the custody of a minor child to one of its parents, or that there has been some misconduct on the part of the one having the custody, the decision of the court awarding the custody of a minor child is final and can not be modified by the court rendering it. See Merges v. Merges, 94 Or. 246 ( 186 P. 36); Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 113 Or. 146 ( 231 P. 964); Ellenburg v. Woodson, 131 Or. 440 ( 283 P. 27); Sachs v. Sachs, 145 Or. 23 ( 25 P.2d 159, 26 P.2d 780). And when an order changing the custody of a minor child is made, it can be done only after notice and an opportunity to be heard has been awarded to the parties and an order made and entered in the suit.

  4. Sachs v. Sachs

    145 Or. 23 (Or. 1933)   Cited 13 times

    So long as the conditions and circumstances surrounding the child and parties remain unchanged, courts should not modify a decree regarding the custody of the child. Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 113 Or. 146 ( 231 P. 964). It would serve no useful purpose to quote at length the affidavits filed in behalf of each of the parties to this cause.

  5. Ellenburg v. Woodson

    131 Or. 440 (Or. 1929)   Cited 8 times

    The prosecution of these proceedings by the father is additional evidence of his love and affection for his boy. The welfare of the child, which is the paramount consideration in cases of this kind, does not require that he be longer kept from the parental care of his father: Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 113 Or. 146, 148 ( 231 P. 964); Leon v. Leon, 79 Or. 347, 349 ( 155 P. 189). See also Merges v. Merges, 94 Or. 246, 253 ( 186 P. 36).

  6. Wells v. Wells-Crawford

    251 P. 907 (Or. 1927)   Cited 15 times

    " In Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 113 Or. 146, 148 ( 231 P. 964), this court said: "The original decree adjudicated the custody of the minor child.

  7. Henrickson v. Henrickson

    358 P.2d 507 (Or. 1961)   Cited 30 times
    In Henrickson, where the asserted change had to do with "external" circumstances, the court reasonably stated the standard more in terms of circumstances that might or might not affect the child's best interests.

    The net effect of our earlier decisions is to render every prior custody order res judicata in any later modification matter. Goldson v. Goldson, supra ( 192 Or at 617); Meredith v. Meredith, 203 Or. 45, 47, 276 P.2d 387 (1954); Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 113 Or. 146, 148, 231 P. 964 (1925). This element of finality continues, notwithstanding the order was entered ex parte. Phillips v. Phillips, 175 Or. 14, 26, 149 P.2d 967; Gibson v. Gibson, 196 Or. 198, 213, 247 P.2d 757. The moving party is, therefore, confined to matters alleged in his motion and supporting affidavit and, as to these matters, has the burden of proof.

  8. Shrout v. Shrout

    224 Or. 521 (Or. 1960)   Cited 24 times
    In Shrout v. Shrout, 224 Or. 521, 356 P.2d 935, principally relied on, the court said, among other things, that any moral transgression of the mother, along with other relevant factors, must be considered in determining what is best for the children in the matter of their custody.

    It is a universal rule, frequently stated by this court, that in providing for the custody of children, the controlling consideration is the welfare of the children — all other rules are secondary and of value only as they aid the court in deciding what is best for the children. Cases in which this principle has been stated include the following: Lambert v. Lambert, 16 Or. 485; McKissick v. McKissick, 93 Or. 644, 653, 174 P. 721, 184 P. 272; Merges v. Merges, 94 Or. 246, 252, 186 P. 36; Johnson v. Johnson, 102 Or. 407, 413, 202 P. 722; Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 113 Or. 146, 148, 231 P. 964; Henry v. Henry, 156 Or. 679, 683, 69 P.2d 280; Van Doozer v. Van Doozer, 181 Or. 274, 277, 181 P.2d 126; Cripe v. Cripe, 186 Or. 502, 504, 207 P.2d 1049; Gallagher v. Gallagher, 187 Or. 625, 632, 212 P.2d 746; Bogh v. Lumbattis, 203 Or. 298, 305, 280 P.2d 398; and Muhler v. Muhler, 220 Or. 321, 349 P.2d 661. This court has also generally held that children of tender years, particularly girls, should be awarded to the custody of the mother unless she is morally unfit.

  9. Hurner v. Hurner

    179 Or. 349 (Or. 1946)   Cited 28 times

    The decree in this respect is a final adjudication of the conditions existing at the time of its rendition. Wells v. Wells-Crawford, 120 Or. 557, 251 P. 263, 907; Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 113 Or. 146, 231 P. 964; Leverich v. Leverich, 175 Or. 174, 152 P.2d 303; Bartlett v. Bartlett, 175 Or. 215, 152 P.2d 402; 19 C.J., Divorce, section 810. The welfare of the child is the criterion, and, even if a change in conditions affecting such welfare is shown, the court must be satisfied that, by the proposed change, the best interests of the child will be promoted. Merges v. Merges, 94 Or. 246, 186 P. 36; Fisher v. Fisher, 133 Or. 318, 289 P. 1062; Leverich v. Leverich, supra.

  10. Elsman v. Elsman

    54 Nev. 20 (Nev. 1931)   Cited 16 times
    Stating that a final judgment in a civil case disposes of all issues and leaves nothing for future consideration

    The law requires a party urging such a motion as here presented to the lower court by the defendant to make a sufficient showing of a change of circumstances as to warrant a modification of the original decree and orders of the court. Crockett v. Crockett, 132 Iowa 388, 106 N.W. 944; Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 231 P. 964; Kettelle v. Kettelle, 294 P. 453; Wood v. Wood, 216 P. 937. In determining whether the motions of the respective parties should be granted, or whether both should be denied, the lower court had one guide only to follow.