Combs v. Combs

WARNE, J. pro tem.

*

This is an appeal from that part of an interlocutory decree of divorce awarding custody of the 5-year-old son of the parties to the respondent.

Appellant contends that the evidence shows that the appel

[34]

lant was in a better position to care for the child than was the respondent, and that the award of the custody of the minor child to the respondent was an abuse of judicial discretion.

“It is the settled rule that, in determining who should have custody of the minor children of the parties to divorce actions, a very broad discretion is vested in the trial court. It is only when a clear abuse of said discretion is made out that this court will interfere with the determination of the trial court on appeal.”

(Prouty

v.

Prouty,

16 Cal.2d 190, 191 [105 P.2d 295]. See also

Taber

v.

Taber,

209 Cal. 755 [290 P. 36];

Simmons

v.

Simmons,

22 Cal.App. 448 [134 P. 791];

Lefebvre

v.

Lefebvre,

48 Cal.App. 483 [192 P. 76].)

In the instant case the trial court in its memorandum of opinion stated: “The court believes that the wife is to some extent emotionally unstable and the court believes that it is for the best interest of the minor child that the custody be awarded to the father ...” And in its findings it found, among other things, that it was for the best interest of the minor child that respondent have the custody of said minor child; that the defendant was an unfit person to have the custody of the child in that she was extremely nervous and for sometime had been treated for said nervousness, and that she had mistreated the child.