California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Guardianship of Coughlin, In re, 129 Cal.App.2d 290, 276 P.2d 841 (Cal. App. 1954):
'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. It is only when a clear case of abuse of said discretion is made out that this court will interfere with the determination of the trial court on appeal. Taber v. Taber, 209 Cal. 755, 290 P. 36; Simmons v. Simmons, 22 Cal.App. 448, 134 P. 791.'
In Taber v. Taber, 209 Cal. 755, 756, 290 P. 36, 37, the court said:
'In determining whether other things are equal within the meaning of the above Code section, the trial court is necessarily allowed a wide latitude in the exercise of its discretion. In the first instance it is for the trial court to determine, after considering all the evidence, how the best interests of [129 Cal.App.2d 293] the child will be preserved. The question is to be determined solely from the standpoint of the child, and the feelings and desires of the contesting parties are not to be considered, except in so far as they affect the best interests of the child. It is only when a clear case of abuse of discretion is made out that this court will interfere with the determination of this question on appeal. The rule has been so stated many times. In Simmons v. Simmons, 22 Cal.App. 448, 451, 134 P. 791, 793, it is said: 'It is manifest that the legislature * * * intended to confide to trial courts, in the disposition of the minor children of the parties to
Page 844
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.