In Re Marriage of Stoker

California Court of Appeal Jan 12, 1977 No. 48781Published

Before: Hastings

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a child custody modification must be based on the best interests of the child rather than on the equitable doctrine of unclean hands or the punishment of a parent. Because the trial court improperly prioritized punitive measures over the child's welfare, the judgment was reversed and remanded for a de novo hearing.

Issues

Whether a trial court may base a child custody modification solely on the equitable doctrine of unclean hands.
Whether a child custody award must be determined by the best interests of the child rather than as a disciplinary action against a parent.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we must agree with Robert that it erred in not awarding custody on the basis of what was best for Tammral.”

“The trial court must determine this issue de novo.”

65 Cal.App.3d 878 (1977) 135 Cal. Rptr. 616 In re the Marriage of LAURA LEE and ROBERT W. STOKER, JR.

ROBERT W. STOKER, JR., Appellant,

LAURA LEE STOKER KINNEY, Respondent.

Docket No. 48781. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Five.

January 12, 1977. [879] COUNSEL

Roland Maxwell, Douglas D. Graham and Thomas S. Bunn, Jr., for Appellant.

Lawrence J. Crow for Respondent.

OPINION

HASTINGS, J.

Appellant Robert W. Stoker, Jr. (Robert) and respondent Laura Lee Stoker Kinney (Laura) were married on December 12, 1969, and had one child of said marriage namely Tammral Jean Stoker born June 5, 1970. The parties separated off and on for about three years when Robert filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on March 26, 1973. In his petition he requested that the custody be awarded to Laura. Robert obtained a default interlocutory judgment of dissolution of marriage on October 29, 1973, which awarded custody of Tammral to Laura.

[880] On November 13, 1973, a stipulation to modify the interlocutory judgment regarding child custody and support signed by both parties transferred custody of Tammral to Robert. Approximately two years later, Laura filed an order to show cause regarding modification of custody and the hearing we are concerned with here was held. Laura testified that prior to signing the stipulation she had received no help from Robert in the way of child support for several months. She stated that Robert had told her that she could support Tammral on her own but if she wanted his help in any way he would want full custody of the child. During part of this time Laura was on welfare. She did not have an attorney nor did she consult an attorney before signing the stipulation, because, as she testified, she could not afford one. Just prior to filing her request for modification, she had heard from Tammral during the child's visitations with her, that Robert and his second wife were planning to move to Utah and to take Tammral with them. At the time of the modification hearing Laura had remarried and evidence was taken as to the living conditions in her home and the environment that would surround Tammral should the judge transfer custody back to her.

In Re Marriage of Stoker

AI Brief

OPINION

HASTINGS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

NOTES

AI Brief