From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wooster v. Thompson

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth
Jan 27, 1956
285 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. Civ. App. 1956)

Opinion

No. 15673.

December 30, 1955. Rehearing Denied January 27, 1956.

Appeal from the District Court, Tarrant County, R. B. Young, J.

Brewster, Pannell, Leeton Dean, and Wm. C. Pannell, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Tilley, Hyder Law, and Thos. H. Law, Fort Worth, for appellees.


The appellant, Elizabeth B. Wooster, mother of the minor child Elizabeth Eillen Thompson, has appealed from a judgment awarding custody of said minor child to its paternal grandparents, Clyde and Ossie Thompson.

The appeal is predicated on the theory that the evidence is wholly insufficient to establish a relinquishment of custody of others, or to show a change of condition sufficient to change or modify the custody order previously in effect or that the best interest and welfare of the child would be served thereby.

No useful purpose would be served in setting out the evidence in the statement of facts comprising 500 plus pages. Suffice it to say, the evidence is amply sufficient to support the judgment entered.

The trial judge was the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony and he had the opportunity to observe the parties and weigh their respective qualifications. He is in a better position to analyze the facts, weight the virtues of the parties and determine what will be for the best interest of the child than can be ascertained from reading the record. Therefore, the awarding of the custody of a minor child will not be disturbed on appeal unless the award is so contrary to the great preponderance of the evidence as to show an abuse of discretion. Moore v. Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 213 S.W.2d 724; Humphreys v. Humphreys, Tex.Civ.App., 200 S.W.2d 453; Prendergast v. Prendergast, Tex.Civ.App., 122 S.W.2d 710; Penn v. Abell, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d 483; Epstein v. Epstein, Tex.Civ.App., 84 S.W.2d 894; Lyle v. Lyle, Tex.Civ.App., 141 S.W.2d 960; Turk v. McLure, Tex.Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 1049; Norris v. Norris, Tex.Civ.App., 194 S.W.2d 813.

Viewing the record as a whole, we cannot say the trial court abused his discretion in awarding custody of the child to appellees. An appellate court does not have the power to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Taylor v. Meek, Tex., 276 S.W.2d 787; Kell v. Texas Children's Home Aid Society, Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W.2d 900.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


Summaries of

Wooster v. Thompson

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth
Jan 27, 1956
285 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. Civ. App. 1956)
Case details for

Wooster v. Thompson

Case Details

Full title:Elizabeth B. WOOSTER, Appellant, v. Clyde THOMPSON et ux., Appellees

Court:Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth

Date published: Jan 27, 1956

Citations

285 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. Civ. App. 1956)

Citing Cases

Shields v. Tarrant County

Taylor v. Meek, 154 Tex. 305, 276 S.W.2d 787. In a case such as the one before us the judgment of the trial…

Holitzke v. Holitzke

After a careful examination of the record, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in awarding…