McLemore v. McLemore
346 S.W.2d 722 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Divided or 'split' custody of young children is disfavored and should not be awarded except under exceptional circumstances or for strong and convincing reasons, as the paramount consideration of the child's welfare generally requires the stability of a single home, often with the mother.
Facts:
- Nancy and Ralph McLemore married in 1951 and separated in 1960.
- They had three daughters, aged eight, five, and two.
- The youngest child was born with a physical defect that required corrective surgery.
- Both parents were deemed fit and suitable, and their respective homes were in the same town.
- Ralph McLemore's employment required him to be absent from home for significant periods.
- During his periods of custody, Ralph McLemore would need to rely on his sister and parents to provide care for the children while he was away for work.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy and Ralph McLemore were parties to a divorce action in a Kentucky trial court.
- The trial court's judgment awarded custody of the three children to each parent alternately for a week at a time.
- The judgment also ordered the father to pay $50 per month for support.
- Nancy McLemore, the mother, appealed the custody and support portions of the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a custody arrangement that requires three young girls to alternate living with their mother and father on a weekly basis serve the paramount interest of the children's welfare?
Opinions:
Majority - Montgomery, Judge
No. A custody arrangement requiring young children to alternate homes weekly does not serve their best interests. The paramount consideration in child custody cases is the welfare of the child, which is generally best served by awarding custody to the mother, especially in the case of young girls, to ensure stability. The court reasoned that it is loath to deprive a mother of custody of very young children due to the nature of their relationship. Citing precedent, the court condemned split custody arrangements as being 'greatly to the detriment of the children' because they create an unsettled life without a fixed, permanent home. Such arrangements should only be approved in 'exceptional circumstances' or for 'strong and convincing reasons,' which were not present in this case. The father's need to rely on other relatives to care for the children during his work-related absences further supported the conclusion that custody should be awarded solely to the mother.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the 'tender years doctrine' and establishes a significant judicial presumption against split custody arrangements in Kentucky law. It prioritizes the need for stability and a single, primary home for young children over the parents' desires for equal time. The ruling sets a high standard for trial courts, requiring them to find 'exceptional circumstances' before ordering a divided custody schedule. This precedent makes it more difficult to obtain split custody for young children and solidifies the legal preference for awarding primary custody to the mother, particularly for young daughters, when all other factors are equal.
