McCurdy v. McCurdy

*444Dissenting Opinion

Hoffman, J.1

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.

The trial judge, on May 7,1976, made the following findings and judgment:

“And the Court being duly advised in the premises, now finds as follows:
“1. That the marriage between these parties was dissolved by this Court on the 12th day of June, 1975, and as a result of that action, Barbara J. McCurdy was given the legal custody of the two (2) minor children of that marriage, namely, TAMELA McCURDY, age eight (8) years and JOHN McCURDY, age five (5) years.
“2. That at the time of the decree of dissolution aforementioned, Max L. McCurdy was incarcerated in the Clark County Jail awaiting trial on numerous criminal charges consisting inter alia of several counts of rape and kidnapping.
“3. That as a result of the dissolution of marriage, Max L. McCurdy, was granted the right of reasonable visitation with said minor children.
“4. That Max L. McCurdy has subsequently been sentenced to the Indiana State Prison, Michigan City, Indiana, on his plea of guilty to one kidnapping charge and four rapes and is presently serving a life sentence on these charges.
“5. That the children of the parties hereto are presently unaware that Max L. McCurdy is in prison, but have been told that he is institutionalized in a hospital.
“6. That to allow Max L. McCurdy visitation with the minor children hereto at the Indiana State Prison might endanger the children’s physical health, or signficantly (sic) impair their emotional development, and considering the age of the children, visitation at the Indiana State Prison is unreasonable.
“IT IS, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND DECREED by the Court that Max L. McCurdy’s petition to allow visitation rights should be, and hereby is denied.”

Pursuant to IC 1971, 31-1-11.5-24 (Burns Supp. 1976), the trial court found that visitation might endanger the physical *445health or significantly impair the emotional development of the children.

Testimony of two witnesses at the hearing described the reaction of Tamela to her father’s arrest and incarceration in the county jail. “And she withdrawed. (sic) She cried an awful lot; she just didn’t seem happy with anything. She didn’t want to be with the other children, she didn’t want to be with people; she more or less wanted to be off to herself. And when it would get dark, she wanted to make sure she was by her mother.” It took about six months for Tamela to return to her cheerful self as a happy and content child, who likes to be with other children and have a good time.

Thus, there was ample evidence upon which the trial court based its finding and judgment.

Thus, there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court and its judgment should be affirmed.

Note. — Reported at 363 N.E.2d 1298.

. Hoffman, Judge, participating by designation.