Guardianship of Coughlin

California Court of Appeal Dec 1, 1954 No. Civ. 4789Published

Before: Mussell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of a petition for visitation privileges, finding that the trial court acted within its broad discretion in determining that such visitation would not serve the best interests of the minor children.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in admitting prior testimony and evidence regarding the appellant's conduct in a guardianship visitation proceeding.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's petition for visitation privileges with the minor children.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is the settled rule that, in determining who should have the custody of the minor children of the parties to divorce actions, a very broad discretion is vested in the trial courts.”

“There is substantial evidence in the instant case to support the trial court’s findings and conclusion that the interests of the children would not be best subserved by the granting of the petition herein.”

MUSSELL, J.

Respondent John H. Coughlin was by order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, on November 25, 1949, appointed guardian of the two minors here involved. Thelma Ruth Coughlin (petitioner and appellant herein) filed objections to the petition of Dr. Coughlin in the guardianship proceeding and by counterpetition asked that she be appointed guardian of both children. The trial court denied her petition and found that the general welfare of the two children would be best served under the guardianship of Dr. Coughlin. Thelma Ruth Coughlin appealed from the orders in that proceeding and they were affirmed on appeal. (In re

Coughlin,

101 Cal.App.2d 727 [226 P.2d 46].)

At the time the guardianship proceeding was heard in the

[291]

superior court a divorce action between the parties was pending, filed by Mrs. Coughlin on September 4, 1948. She sought custody of the children in her divorce action and by application for an order pendente lite. This application was heard at the same time as the guardianship matter and denied by the trial court.

One of the children (Mary Dianne Coughlin) was adopted by appellant and respondent in 1942 and in 1947 they filed a joint petition for the adoption of the other child (Michael John Coughlin). The Department of Social Welfare, on September 12, 1947, recommended the denial of this petition, numbered 18030 in the files of the superior court, on the ground that the natural mother could not be located and on August 25, 1952, respondent herein filed his individual petition, number 22723, for the adoption of Michael. This petition was granted by the court on December 5, 1952, and the first joint petition, number 18030, was dismissed by the court.

On November 3,1952, appellant herein filed a petition in the guardianship matter in which she sought an order of court instructing the guardian to permit her to visit said minor children and have them visit with her at reasonable and specified times and

places;

that she be permitted to “pick up” the children from their school on Tuesday and Thursday of each week and to visit them in their home on said days between the hours of 3 p. m. and 8 p.

Guardianship of Coughlin

AI Brief

MUSSELL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief