What is the test for contempt for failure to furnish a telephone number or accept telephone call?

More important, the affidavit charging the alleged contempt did not aver or charge any offense for failure to furnish telephone number or to accept telephone call; and it is settled that the affidavit charging the contempt must state the facts constituting the offense, and that its insufficiency cannot be cured by facts proved on the hearing. Warner v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.App.2d 821, 824, 273 P.2d 89.

The father contends that, since the custody decree in the case at bar gave them specific visitation rights, such decree is distinguishable from the custody order in Beabout v. Beam, supra, 119 Cal.App.2d 768, 260 P.2d 145, 146 (wherein the other parent was given the right to visit the children 'at reasonable times'); and that the custody order herein can only be construed as prohibiting the removal of the children from California. The claimed distinction is one without any real difference. In Beabout v. Beam, the parent, to whom the custody of the children had been awarded subject to the right of the other parent to visit them at reasonable times, moved with the children from Indiana to California. Such removal obviously impeded and made more difficult the Indiana parent's right to visit the children at reasonable times in substantially the same way as the removal of the children to Florida in the case at bar impeded and made more difficult the father's right herein to have the children with him at stated times and to telephone them each evening.

It is clear, therefore, that Beabout v. Bearn, is necessarily based on the fundamental proposition that the parent awarded custody has the right to remove the children to another state where the custody order does not prohibit, even though the [181 Cal.App.2d 505] visitation rights of the other parent may incidentally be impeded and made more difficult by reason thereof.