K.J.B. V. C.M.B. 779 S.W.2d 36 (1989) CASE BRIEF

K.J.B. V. C.M.B.

779 S.W.2d 36 (1989)

NATURE OF THE CASE: K.J.B. (H) appealed an order which modified a divorce decree that terminated H's rights of visitation and temporary custody to his two minor children, awarding sole custody to C.M.B. (W).

FACTS: H and W were married in 1980. A dissolution was granted in June, 1984. The decree awarded joint custody of the children. H was in the United States Air Force, stationed in Germany. Consequently, the decree provided that if H was unable to exercise his custody rights his parents would exercise H's rights. In 1987, W withheld H's custody and visitation rights. She alleged the children, now ages seven and eight, were being physically, psychologically and sexually abused during their visits with H or his parents. W instituted a motion to modify by petitioning the trial court for modification of custody order. The court ordered, pending further hearing, that the parties undergo counseling with a therapist, to be selected by mutual agreement of the parties. H was ordered to undergo separate, individual counseling preparatory to joint counseling with his two children. The joint counseling was to commence when the therapist deemed it reasonably safe for the children. The parties, pursuant to the consent order, stipulated in open court that the therapist's written report would be admissible in future proceedings on the pending motions. After only two sessions, the therapist decided any contact between the father and the children would be dangerous. The therapist discontinued the sessions because he felt H was simply showing up for therapy and not really working to cure the problems. W was awarded sole custody of the two children and any further contact between H and the two children was terminated. H appealed. H's claims there is no substantial evidence to support modification of the decree awarding sole custody and to terminate all contact between H and the children. He also challenges the termination of visitation by paternal grandparents. H also claims there was not sufficient evidence of the financial condition of the parties in the record to support an award to mother of $10,065 in attorney's fees. In addition, H argues the court erred when it admitted evidence of his conduct prior to dissolution and excluded two medical exhibits. H also contends he was prejudiced in preparation for trial by unequal access to the children for purposes of medical and psychological evaluation.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner