Walker v. Walker

4 Citing cases

  1. Pirrong v. Pirrong

    1976 OK 36 (Okla. 1976)   Cited 21 times

    The mere fact that conditions have changed since the divorce of the parents is insufficient in itself to warrant a modification of custody. Owens v. Owens, 494 P.2d 318 (Okla. 1972); Walker v. Walker, 460 P.2d 900 (Okla. 1969). The modification apparently resulted from altercations between the parties when the father attempted to visit the children.

  2. OGLE v. OGLE

    1973 OK 149 (Okla. 1973)   Cited 17 times
    In Ogle the attorney clearly did not have a litigable interest in the fee in his own right and independent of that client, whereas here the appealing lawyers have both a statutory lien claim as well as a contract right, both of which are protected by law.

    We need not, and do not, decide whether an unsuccessful party to a child custody matter may seek appellate review of a decision refusing to allow an attorney fee to the unsuccessful party for the benefit of such parties counsel. This Court, in Walker v. Walker, Okla., 460 P.2d 900, 902 declined to reverse a trial court decision refusing to allow an attorney fee for the use and benefit of counsel for the unsuccessful movant, but the petition in error in Walker, supra, sought principally reversal of the custody decision. The decision as to counsel fees in Walker was purely incidental to an adjudication of an appeal by a party to the lawsuit.

  3. Johnson v. Wingert

    268 P.3d 145 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011)   Cited 3 times
    Reversing the termination of joint custody based solely on the father's improved circumstances

    The mere fact that conditions have changed since the divorce of the parents is insufficient in itself to warrant a modification of custody. Owens v. Owens, 494 P.2d 318 (Okl.1972); Walker v. Walker, 460 P.2d 900 (Okl.1969). Id., ¶¶ 12–14, 552 P.2d at 385.

  4. Nowlin v. Nowlin

    551 P.2d 1177 (Okla. Civ. App. 1976)

    Regardless of who does or does not appear, the trial court is without authority to modify a child custody order unless it be proved to its satisfaction that: (1) a substantial and material change of condition has occurred since its entrance, and (2) a custodial change would markedly advance the welfare of the ward. Walker v. Walker, Okla., 460 P.2d 900 (1969). The most defendant has attempted to prove here is that she has decided to settle down in Wilburton and involve herself with a religious organization.