# Blumenthal v. Blumenthal

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 24, 1960 · 161 A.2d 137

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9700727

## Case

- **Full name:** Violet S. BLUMENTHAL, Appellant, v. Lester S. BLUMENTHAL, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** May 24, 1960
- **Citations:** 161 A.2d 137; 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 203
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Cayton
- **Judges:** Rover, Hood, Cayton, Code
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9700727

## Opinion text

CAYTON, Acting Judge
(concurring in part, and dissenting in part).
My views are expressed in the separate opinion I wrote to accompany the majority opinion of this court on November 4, 1959. I do not agree with the disposition now being made of the case. I do not agree that the children are to be limited to their claim for increased support money and that all their other demands should be dismissed without a trial. I do not think such a result can be squared with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals in the Thomason case, or with the action of that court in vacating the earlier decision of this court in this case.
My position is strengthened, at least in part, by the recent decision in Jackson v. *141 Jackson, D.C.Cir., 276 F.2d 501, 504 , No. 15,163, decided March 10, 1960, where it was said that the primary obligation of the father is to be measured by the “welfare and needs of the children, in the past as well as the present and the future, * * * and having in mind also the situation of the parents and any other relevant factor.”
I would require the father to meet and answer plaintiff’s claim in a trial on the merits.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9700727. Public record. Not legal advice.