{ "id": 8563822, "name": "JAMES EVERETT CHRISCOE v. STELLA RELIA STALEY CHRISCOE (DENNIS)", "name_abbreviation": "Chriscoe v. Chriscoe", "decision_date": "1966-11-23", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "554", "last_page": "557", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "268 N.C. 554" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "187 S.E. 560", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "210 N.C. 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626893 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/210/0447-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 S.E. 2d 724", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574074 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0588-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 S.E. 2d 349", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 590", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574533 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0590-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 488, "char_count": 8215, "ocr_confidence": 0.556, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.9527183489882976e-07, "percentile": 0.8489850180454536 }, "sha256": "b388ad83cca6627402ad169a778305cc557f0916536cb88aa97f1057e4bbf5a7", "simhash": "1:0ce43f8aa01594b9", "word_count": 1437 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:01:58.333486+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JAMES EVERETT CHRISCOE v. STELLA RELIA STALEY CHRISCOE (DENNIS)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nIn his order Judge Morris said that he \u201cfeels an uneasiness in submitting these children to her (the present Mrs. Chriscoe\u2019s) discipline, custody, care and tuition, and feels that it will not be in their best interest so to do; the court finding, furthermore, that the husband, the plaintiff in this cause, has, for certain periods of time, manifested a distinct unwillingness to perform his parental duties, thereby constituting him not a fit and proper person to have the care, custody and tuition of said minor children\u201d.\nThis case presents a pitiful picture. Three attractive children were left by their father, an able-bodied man, for eight months during which he sent a dime a day for their support, $25. Since his remarriage he has left them in such condition that his 17-year-old brother-in-law beat the little 3-year-old girl so that \u201cthere were many places on her legs that looked as though the blood was ready to come out \u2014 about eight long marks on her legs, from her panties-on down\u201d; that Faye Chriscoe stated * * \u201cthat the baby sitter,, my brother, whipped her for saying \u2018damn\u2019 \u201d; then Faye Chriscoe later said that \u201cJames Chriscoe had also whipped the child because-Thelma had told him a lie, and also for Thelma using the word \u2018damn\u2019 \u201d.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s sister, Yera Beam, made an affidavit that in her opinion the plaintiff and his present wife \u201care not proper persons to-raise these children; that they beat the children unmercifully; fuss at them in loud and boisterous tones, and do not appear to genuinely love either of these children\u201d.\nThe above excerpts are sufficient to justify the court in his finding that \u201cthe environment at the place of residence of the plaintiff is not in the best interest of these children\u201d and his further finding that the best interest of the children will be served by making the order of custody set forth in the statement of facts.\nHis disposition of the matter is in accord with In Re Bowman, 264 N.C. 590, 142 S.E. 2d 349, where it is said: \u201cIn determining who shall have the custody of the child of a broken home \u2014 one of the gravest responsibilities cast upon a Superior Court judge \u2014 \u2018the welfare of the child * * * is the polar star * *\nAfter the court had considered the evidence and heard the argument of counsel he dictated the order complained of, and shortly afterwards the court was adjourned for the day, the order not having been typed and, of course, not signed. That night the plaintiff went to the home where John Edward Chriscoe was and took him to his (plaintiff\u2019s) home, saying that he could keep the boy \u201cuntil November when the matter was heard in Raleigh\u201d. This matter was called to the attention of the judge the following morning and a discussion of possible contempt proceedings was held.\nThe judge then dictated an order that pending the appeal to the Supreme Court the custody of the children was to be immediately vested with Mr. and Mrs. Beam and Mr. and Mrs. Hussey, to which the plaintiff excepted. In Joyner v. Joyner, 256 N.C. 588, 124 S.E. 2d 724, Higgins, J., speaking for the Court, said: \u201cIn a custody case the court acquires jurisdiction of the child as well as of the parent. The child thus becomes a ward of the court. The court\u2019s duty to its ward should not be held in abeyance pending review.\u201d Inasmuch as the dictated order of the judge had not been signed and the matter remained in fieri during the term of the court, he was authorized to add to the order the following morning when he decreed that the children should remain with the persons to whom they had been awarded pending the appeal. \u201cThe general power of the court over its own judgments, orders, and decrees in both civil and criminal cases, during the existence of the term at which they are first made is undeniable. * * * Until the expiration of the term the orders and judgments of the court are in fieri, and the judge has power, in his discretion, to make such changes and modifications in them as he may deem wise and appropriate for the administration of justice.\u201d S. v. Godwin, 210 N.C. 447, 187 S.E. 560. While the action of the plaintiff in taking the child caused discussion of possible proceedings in contempt, no formal finding to that effect was made and no penalty imposed, and the matter is now moot.\nThe plaintiff also excepts to the order of the court in which he was taxed with one-third of the costs of the proceeding, the remainder being taxed against Mr. and Mrs. Beam and Mr. and Mrs. Hussey. The latter took no exception to the order but the plaintiff says in his brief that the action of the court \u201cis puzzling * * * it should have been all or nothing.\u201d G.S. 6-20 provides that: \u201cIn other action costs may be allowed in the discretion of the court unless otherwise provided by law.\u201d This statute has been construed as meaning that the taxing of the costs in cases of this type is in the discretion of the trial judge, which discretion is not reviewable. The plaintiff should not complain because he is taxed with only one-third of the costs when it could have been the entire amount, and his exception is not well taken.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Ottway Burton for plaintiff appellant.", "Walker, Anderson, Bell & Ogburn for defendant appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JAMES EVERETT CHRISCOE v. STELLA RELIA STALEY CHRISCOE (DENNIS).\n(Filed 23 November, 1966.)\n1. Habeas Corpus \u00a7 3\u2014\nOrder awarding the custody of children respectively to their paternal aunt and their maternal uncle and their respective spouses upon the court\u2019s findings, supported by evidence, that the divorced parents of the children and the second wife of the father were not suitable persons to have the custody and care of the children, and that the best interest of the children required the awarding of their custody in accordance with the order, will not be disturbed.\n2. Same; Appeal and Error \u00a7 12\u2014\nOrder awarding custody of minor children should not be held in abeyance pending review.\n3. Judgments \u00a7 6\u2014\nA decree of the court is in fieri during the term and the trial judge has authority during the term to modify or add to its decree.\n4. Costs \u00a7 3\u2014\nIn proceedings for the award of the custody of minor children, the court has the discretionary power to apportion the costs among the parties. G.S. 6-20.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Morris, E.J., at June 1966 Special Session of RaNdolph Superior Court.\nThe plaintiff and defendant, his divorced wife, are the parents of three children \u2014 two boys, eight and seven, and a four-year-old girl. The father seeks their custody, which was denied by Judge Morris, and has appealed.\nIt appears from the pleadings and evidence that plaintiff and defendant had an unhappy marriage, that the plaintiff went to Texas for some eight months, and sent only $25 for his three children during that time.\nUpon his return he obtained a divorce and is now married to Faye Keeling Chriscoe. While Thelma, then three years old, was living with them, she was left with her step-uncle, 17 years old. Because he said she cursed he beat her so badly that \u201cit looked like the blood was ready to come out\u201d.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s neighbors signed affidavits that they frequently heard them \u201cfussing and cursing\u201d. The court found that the plaintiff\u2019s present wife is a person of high temper and that it would not be in the best interest of the children to submit them to her, custody \u2022 \u2014 -which would result if awarded to the plaintiff.\nThe court found (reluctantly) that their mother is not a \u00f1t and suitable person to have custody of the children. She has not appealed.\nThe court then found that plaintiff\u2019s sister, Mrs. Henry Beam, has had the custody of James Colon Chriscoe, the oldest boy, most of his life, that she loves him and treats him as her own child, that he wants to live with her and that his continued residence with her is in his best interest \u201cwhich the court holds to be the Polar Star\u201d and so awards his custody and that of his younger brother to her.\nJudge Morris makes similar findings that the other child, Thelma, loves and is wanted by the mother\u2019s brother and his wife, Willie and Reba Hussey, and awarded them her custody.\nThe plaintiff is given visiting privileges and the right to have the children with him at least thirty days a year.\nOttway Burton for plaintiff appellant.\nWalker, Anderson, Bell & Ogburn for defendant appellee." }, "file_name": "0554-01", "first_page_order": 594, "last_page_order": 597 }