Moon v. Moon

BISHOP, J. pro tem.

Plaintiff’s notice of appeal states that she appeals from all orders made in this case on February 15, 1943, and particularly from six orders which are specifically mentioned. We shall comment upon these orders in the order of their appearance—or failure to appear.

The first to appear in this order: “Defendant is ordered to prepare Findings of Fact and said Findings are to be added to the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal, otherwise Clerk’s Transcript and Reporter’s Transcripts on appeal are signed, settled, allowed and made a part of the Records in this case.” The findings referred to were ultimately signed and filed and came up, physically, as a part of the record in the companion appeal,

ante,

p. 185 [144 P.2d 596], in which we are today filing an opinion. We paid no attention to them, however, for findings of fact are not required to support an order modifying a custody provision

(Crater

v.

Crater

(1902), 135 Cal. 633, 635 [67 P. 1049];

Simmons

v.

Simmons

(1913), 22 Cal.App. 448, 456 [134 P. 791];

Gavel

v.

Gavel

(1932), 123 Cal.App. 589, 591 [11 P.2d 654]) except possibly in the case of an award of custody to one not a parent of the child (see

Stever

v.

Stever

(1936), 6 Cal.2d 166 [56 P.2d 1229]), and these findings were filed more than two months after the making of the order from which an appeal had already been taken. The plaintiff devotes the first portion of her brief to some criticism of the court’s order respecting the preparation of findings, although the subject is not one of those

[191]