In Re Marriage of Murga

California Court of Appeal Mar 18, 1980 No. 21113Published

Before: Kaufman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A trial court may modify visitation rights when a noncustodial parent moves, and it will not enjoin a noncustodial parent from discussing religion or involving a child in religious activities absent a clear showing of harm to the child.

Issues

Does a noncustodial parent's relocation constitute a change of circumstances sufficient to modify visitation?
May a court enjoin a noncustodial parent from discussing religion or involving a child in religious activities without a showing of harm?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the decision of a noncustodial parent to establish residence in a place that is far enough away to preclude the exercise of existing visitation rights necessarily constitutes a changed circumstance sufficient to support a modification”

“it is our holding, therefore, that while the custodial parent undoubtedly has the right to make ultimate decisions concerning the child's religious upbringing, a court will not enjoin the noncustodial parent from discussing religion”

103 Cal.App.3d 498 (1980) 163 Cal. Rptr. 79 In re the Marriage of JANICE LEE and ANTHONY R. MURGA.

ANTHONY R. MURGA, Respondent,

JANICE LEE MURGA PETERSEN, Appellant.

Docket No. 21113. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two.

March 18, 1980. [500] COUNSEL

D. Dian Hixon for Appellant.

[501] Roger R. Meadows for Respondent.

OPINION

KAUFMAN, Acting P.J.

Janice Lee (Murga) Petersen (mother) appeals from an order modifying the child visitation provisions in the interlocutory and final judgments dissolving the marriage of the parties.

At the time of the dissolution, in December 1974, custody of Brian Murga (hereafter the child), then age three, was awarded to the mother. The father, Anthony Murga, was given visitation rights, including the right to visit with the child on alternate weekends and specified holidays, as well as for one week each summer and one week prior to Christmas Eve. In July 1978, the father sought a modification of his visitation rights because he was going to move to Pensacola, Florida, for at least three years and the mother had refused to agree to any period of visitation in Florida longer than a week. The mother opposed the requested modification of visitation rights and, in addition, requested that the father be restrained from: (1) requiring the child to engage in any religious activity except as approved by the mother; (2) "[s]ermonizing, evangelizing, instructing, discoursing with, and/or attempting to indoctrinate" the child on any religious subject without her prior approval; and (3) removing the child from the seven southern counties of California without her consent.

The hearing on the motion was held on August 21, 1978. The trial court granted the father visitation with the child for one 2-week period each year until 1980. In 1980, the period of visitation would be increased to three weeks, and in 1981, to four weeks. It permitted the father to phone the child once a week on condition that he refrain from discussing any "religious or biblical activities." Otherwise, the court refused to grant the religious restrictions requested by the mother.

In Re Marriage of Murga

AI Brief

OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief