The Supreme Court of Oregon held in the case of Neil v. Neil, 112 Or. 63, 228 P. 687, that the court had no jurisdiction to enter a final and irrevocable decree concerning the custody of the minor child of divorced parents, and that an order with respect to the custody is never final in the sense that it is unchangeable. In the case of Saltzman v. Saltzman, 154 Or. 178, 58 P.2d 617, it was held that whenever it is shown to the court that a change of custody is in the interest of the child's welfare, the court may in its discretion modify a previous decree. We have a number of cases in this state to the same effect.

It is obvious that, in considering the welfare of the child, the court cannot be influenced either by the feelings of the parents or by any agreement or understanding into which they may have entered. Matthews v. Matthews, 60 Or. 451, 119 P. 766; Addison v. Addison, 117 Or. 80, 242 P. 832; Fisher v. Fisher, 133 Or. 318, 289 P. 1062; Saltzman v. Saltzman, 154 Or. 178, 58 P.2d 617. Admitting that a mother, by reason of bad moral character, may be denied custody of a child, nevertheless the appellant contends that, to justify such denial, the immorality of the mother must be so gross as to affect the child's welfare.