HomeMy WebLinkAbout1208 _ CARROLL vs. PEASE
where there is a subsequent violation of the terms of a child
custody agreement. Another consideration is that no child
custody agreement can be absolute. The best interest of the
child i$ paramount, and if'conditions change the Court may
modify the child custody rights of the parents, regardless of
the provisions of any prior agreement between them. The fact
that Mrs. C~rroll no longer has custody of her son and that Mr.~
Pease obtained custody in violation of the terms of the original
agreement, does not prove that Mr. Pease entered into the agree-
ment fraudulently.
Although not determinative of the issue in this case,
the evidence establishes that after Mr. Pease took his son,
Frederick R. Pease, Jr., to Connecticut, he instituted there a
habeas corpus proceeding to obtain legal custody of said child.
At a hearing on March 13, 1974, in the Superior Cgurt,held at
New Haven, Connecticut, wherein both Mr. Pease and Mrs~. Carroll
were present, represented by their respective attorneys, Mr.
Pease was granted custody of Frederick R. Pease, Jr., subject
~ - to visitation rights of Mrs. Carroll from July 15 through
~
~ August 15 of each year. There has also been a defacto change of
~ custody of the older son, Stephen Frank Pease. This child,
several months ago, elected to return to Florida and is nowr
living with Mrs. Carroll. The custody of the two children is
now reversed from that contemplated by the parties in their
original agreement. ~
The Court, having considered all of the evidence and
testimony in this case, having read the briefs of counsel, and
a,
Y,~
bein full advised in the premises, determines and finds that
~ 9 Y
~ the Plaintiff, MONA M. PEASE CARROLL, has failed to establish by
~
~ clear and convincing evidence that the execution and delivery by
~
~
'
` ~
.
o p 225 ~Ei206 _ - 4 - ,
~ 800U
~ ~ . - - ~ ~ -
; ::~-~=~~.a;~`~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~
- z.,~:a
- .a y _
_ ~Y. - _ - _
.~.,.3. . ,..~c, . \,.-_W . _...3