Petition — Coughenour v. Mills
Supreme Court brief1980
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
IN THE Le: :
Cm RORA 1 oe OF) ERW
Supreme Court of the United States”
October Term 1979
No. @eeeoeoeoeee28eee? #
CLYDE I. COUGHENOUR
Petitioner
Ve
WANDA F. MILLS
Respondent
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from
the Court of Special Appeals,
State of Maryland
Clyde I. Coughenour
16607 Sutton Place
Woodbridge, Virginia
William E. Brooke 22191
Attorney for Respondent
14749 Main Street
Upper Marlboro, Maryland
20870
pro se
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Opinion below ..eeeeecreeeeeeecccs 1
Jurisdiction Cie tha hn eee © rere 2
Constitutional and Statutory
Provisions Involved ...-.ee-- 5
Questions Presented ...-ceeeecceees 4
Statement eeeeveev4aeeee2ee2802802808 eeee2ee#e#e#e# 6
How the Federal Questions Were
Raised and Decided Below ..... ‘ 8
The Federal Questions Are
Substantial eeeeeeeeeeee 10
ConcluSion ccccccccccccceces ive ote 22
TABLE OF CASES
SUPREME COURT
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 ee gg Aer
(1973
Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971) «.---- 3,9
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) 3
Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U.S. 7 (1975) .. 3
Weinberger v. Weisenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 3
(1975)
OTHER CASES
Baker v. Otto, 180 Md. 53 (1941) ...-.- 12
Davis v. Davis, 280 Md. 119 (1977),
cert. denied, 434 U.S. 939 (1978) 20
Hild v. Hild, 221 Md. 349 (1960) ..---- 19
TABLE OF CASES, Cont.
OTHER CASES ! Page
Klupt v. Bar Ass'n, 197 Md. 659 (1951) .. 12
Loceetti v. Loccetti, 245 Md. 97 (1967) .. 13
McAndrews v. McAndrews, 39 Md.App.1
| ; CORTES ienasas > te
McGrath v. McGrath, 213 Md. 442 (1957) .. 12
Montgomery Cty. Dept. Soc. Ser. v. !
Sanders, 38 Md.App. 406 (1978) .. 20
Northern Cent. Ry,Co. v. Rutledge, 48 Md.
262 (1878) Meh eeareeaneesees uN
Silver Spring: Title Co. v. Chadwick, Be
213 Md. 178 (1957) sccceceencese 12
TABLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Amendment Fourteen, United States re
Constitution ......11,21
Article 46, Maryland State Constitution... 5,13
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Article 16, Sec. 5A Maryland Code Annotated 6, 16
Article 72A, Sec. 1 Maryland Code dirt 6,13
15
Article 27 Secs. 435, 437, 439
Maryland Code Annotated 6,13
28 U.S. C. See VATA eevecticcsessves 3
Maryland Rules of Procedure
Rules 866 and 1066 2... ckccccccscwsiewccssve 6,20
Rule 1230, EC 7-24, EC 7-35, DR 1-102,
DR 7-102, DR 7-110 .....-..+-- 6,12
Rule 1231, Canons ill, V, XI XVI XXXill,
isles: A i TA ai idee catocccsns 8,71
TABLE OF REFERENCES
7B J. Moore, Federal Practice J,C.
1257 (2d ed. 1974) ~.ccccceeees 3
C.A. Wright, Law of Federal Courts
Sec. 107 at pp. 491-492
(2d-ed. 1970) cccccccccecces sk 3
APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A Page
Order of trial court ....cececeeeees ie ale aries 7m
Decision, Court of Special Appeals, Md. .. 2-10
Opinion of trial court ...-+eeeee- 4-6
Memorandum of trial court ....ceeeeeeeeee 11
Letter Court of Special Appeals .....-.--- 12
Order, Court of Appeals, Md. .--eeeeeeees 13
Order, Court of Appeals , Md. .-eeeeeeeeee 14
MARYLAND CASE LAW
Wishes of children ......--- eke erg, Be
Physical needs Gdidusreinnanes ae
Character of wife veebeeces a ieeeae ee
Religious strains ee eee eas
Voluntary impoverishment ...--+--+-+e+- 21
Maryland Constitution, Article 46 ......--- 15
Annotated Code of Maryland
Article 16, Sec 5A ..ccececeecceeess 15
Article 27 Secs. 435,437,439 .....- 15
Article 72A, Sec. 1 ..eeeeee einene 16
APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS, Cont.
Maryland Rules of Procedure
Rule 886 and 1086 .....--eeeees ae
Rule 1230 and cites from Code of
Professional Responsibility ....
Rule 1231 and cites from Canons of
Judicial Responsibility .......--
How federal questions raised ...---eeeees
Ex-parte CommMunicationS .---+sseeeeees
Pigkitisnmeds Mi oi oo << Gok wip he so os oe
Respondents troubled home ..---+eeeeeee
Respondent's ignorant witnesses .....---
Respondent's troubles out of court ......
Respondent's chronic lying .-+++-+ee-+s-
Respondent's counsel not honest with court
Respondent able to work ..ceeeeeeceecces
Children subjected to religious strains ...
Certified statement of children .....--+--
Respondent's home improvements for trial
Petitioner's contempt and second job...
iv
A Page
IN THE
Supreme Court Of The United States
October Term, 1979
No. eeeeoeeeeee?#ees?
CLYDE |. COUGHENOUR,
Petitioner
WANDA F. MILLS
Respondent
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from
the Court of Special Appeals,
State of Maryland
OPINION BELOW
The opinions of the Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland are unreported and unpublished in the
official Maryland Report and are set forth in the
appendix, A2-10.
The oral opinion of the trial court, The
2
Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland,
is. incorporated in toto in the Court of Special Appeals
opinion, A4-8.
JURISDICTION
The judgment sought to be reviewed is an order
of the trial court, The Circuit Court for Prince George's
County , Maryland, entered the 19th day of July 1978
(A1) on an oral opinion delivered on the 30th day of
June, 1978 (A4-8); and that of the Court of Special
Appeals of Maryland, filed on the 16th day of April,
1979 (A2-10).
An Exceptions and Request for Reconsideration
was filed with the trial court on July 11, 1978 (A22)
and denied by Memorandum of Court dated July 19,
1978 (A11); reconsideration requested of the Court
of Special Appeals of Maryland on the 25th day of
April, 1979 (A25) was denied in letter dated May
3, 1979 (A12); Petition on Writ of Certioari, filed
in the Court of Appeals of Maryland on May 25, 1979
was denied in order dated July19, 1979 (A13); with
request for reconsideration to the Court of Appeals
of Maryland filed on August 17, 1979, denied in
order dated the 28th day of September, 1979 (A14).
PO NES Be
3
Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1257 (3), being a matter
which draws into question the due process and
equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment to the Constitution of the United States.
Maryland State constitution, statutes, law and
procedure provide rights and protections, which
extend to all its citizens without regard to rep-
resentation or sex. The state courts violation of
federal and state constitutions, statutes and law
and of trial and appellate procedures in discrimin-
ation against Petitioner in proper person and
because of sex, is repugnant to both state and
federal guarantees, protections and rights.
Jurisdiction of this Court is sustained by 7B
J. Moore, FEDERAL PRACTICE J.C. 1257
(2d ed. 1974); C.A. Wright, LAW OF FEDERAL
COURTS Sec 107, at pp. 491-492 (2d ed. 1970) ;
Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971); Stanley v.
IIlinois,405 U.S. 645 (1972); Frontiero v.
Richardson,411 U.S. 677 (1973); Stanton v.
Stanton, 421 U.S. 7 (1975); and Weinberger v.
Weisenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975).
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
|. Whether a man proceeding in proper person
in a state domestic court loses his rights to due
process and equal protection as provided for in the
Federal Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment or it
is error and repugnant to such rights for the state
trial and appellate courts to ignore and refuse to
apply, enforce and address such rights?
ll. Wether the state trial and appellate courts
making biased awards of money and custody and
answering legal questions in such a way as to be
in conflict with state constitution, statutes, laws
and regulations is error and a denial of due process
and equal protection and repugnant to the Federal
Constitution Fourteenth Amendment?
lll. Whether the state trial courts departure from
the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings
by conducting the trial ex-parte in part with opposing
counsel, generating a hostile and biased attitude
toward Petitioner, is error and a denial of due
process and equal protection and repugnant to the
Federal Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment?
IV. Whether the appellate courts departure
from the accepted and usual course of judicial
eT ee ee ee tee
2 ene rear
5
proceedings by perverting and violating the strict
guidlines for reversing the trial Court's finding of
facts and application of the law, when the appel-
late court under the guise of affirming the trial
court without cause or justification created its own
erroneous phantom facts to reverse the trial courts
finding of facts and application of new discrimin-
atory law so that it could sustain the trial court's
ultimate award, was error and a violation of due
process and equal protection and repugnant to the
Federal Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment.
V. Whether the appellate court's sanctioning
of the trial court's departure from the accepted and
usual course of judicial proceedings by conducting
ex-parte proceedings and by violating constitutional ,
‘aides and legal protections, violated Petitioner's
right to due process and equal protection and was
error and repugnant to the Federal Constitution,
Fourteenth Amendment.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS
INVOLVED |
4. This case involves the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United Stetes.
2. This case involves Article 46, Declaration
of Rights, Equal Rights Amendment, Maryland
Constitution (A15).
3. This case involves Atricle 72A, Parent and
Child, Sec. 1, Maryland Code Annotated (A16) .
4. Also involved are:
a. Atricle 16, Sec. 5A, Maryland Code
Annotated, Award of Costs ... (A15).
b. Article 27, Sec. 435, What shall be deemed
perjury; 437, Contradictory statements; 439,
Penalty (A15-16).
c. Maryland Rules of Procedure, Rules 886
and 1086, Review when action tried by lower
court without jury (A17).
d. Maryland Rules of Procedure, Rule 1230,
Code of Professional Responsibility, EC 7-24,
EC 7-35, DR 1-102, DR 7-102, DR 7-110 (A17-19).
e. Maryland Rules of Procedure, Rule 1231,
Canons and Rules of Judicial Ethics, Canons Ill,
V, Xl, XVI, XXXIllend Rules 1 and 14 (A19-20).
STATEMENT
Petitioner and Respondent were once husband
and wife, on August 8, 1974, an absolute divorce
was entered with custody of the four minor children
of the marriage continued inRespondent mother .
On January 24, 1976, Petitioner remarried and
on October 27, 1977 adopted the daughter of his
wife by a previous marriage. On May 28, 1976,
Respondent remarried and on September 11, 1976
gave birth to a boy child.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Modification of
child custody in November of 1977. Hearings were
we eer anemamene tts y TET
we - comemmemenas Bae
-
conducted on the 23rd and 28th days of June, 1978;
on June 30, 1978, the children were interviewed in
private, oral arguments were made and the opinion
of the court rendered, the only proceedings on that
day. '
During the trial, without challenge or contradic-
tion, there was evidence and testimony from eight
witnesses intimately familiar with Petitioner's
home, to the effect that with Petitioner the children
would be better fed, clothed, housed, tutored in
school and living in a pleasant surrounding in an
atmosphere of love, warmth and harmony with a
clean, wholesome, moral, spiritual, religious
environment compatible with their own, with
adults that are good influences, dependable and
capable of preparing them for the future with
confidence and self respect (A29-36).
Three witnesses, two called by Petitioner and
one by Respondent, and Respondent herself in
part, testified of mismanagement, financial
problems, fighting over money, sex, religion, etc,
frequent separations, and contentions in Respond-
ents home with it being shown that the moral
standards associated with her home (fornication,
adultery, lying, etc.) were below that the child-
ren were trying to live; two qualified witnesses,
Bishops in the children's church, testified that
such conduct would have a harmful effect on the
children trying to live a higher standard (A36-49,
A54-56) .
Respondent did not prove or even urge a
single advantage to the children living with her.
Her witnesses, with one exception, were ignorant
of the conditions in her home (A38-40) .
8
Respondent attributed all her problems to
Petitioner in court but the evidence and her out
of court statements showed this not to be the
truth (A40-43). Her only knowledgable witness
confirmed her troubled home and testified the
best interest of the children would be for them
to be in the custody and care of Petitioner
(A35, 36, 38).
in summation on June 30, 1978, counsel for
Respondent referred to trial related subject matter
discussed that very morning with the chancellor
out of court (A28).
The only action in the month of July, 1978 was
Petitioner's filing a Request for Reconsideration
and a statement by three of the four children, not
of tender years, so distraut by continuation of
custody in Respondent mother, they waived their
protective veil of secrecy and certified publically
they wanted to live with their father, Petitioner
(A56-57). In early August of 1978 there was no
action whatsoever in the case.
On August 9, 1978, the chancellor sent a
letter officially placing the childrens statement
in the record and deriding petitioner's conduct
in July and August (R 311, E 259, A28).
HOW THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS WERE RAISED
AND DECIDED BELOW
in this single domestic case many federal issues
have been raised and need to be addressed. While
they overlap somewhat, they have been collected
and divided into five separate questions so that
what amounts to a conspiracy against men and
children in the domestic courts might be shown.
PPE NED
oS ewe.
9
Because of the notorious reputation of Mary-
land and other state courts for systematically
discriminating against men and children, denying
them their federal and state constitutional,
statutory and legal rights, a four page legal
memorandum (1) was submitted to the trial
court before opening remarks on June 23, 1978,
addressing such rights. Specifically included
were the due process and equal protection clauses
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71
(1971) along with Maryland Constitutional and
statutory and case law (A22). They were ignored
by the trial court. On July 11, 1978 an Exceptions
to Opinion and Motion for Reconsideration .. - (2)
to the trial court on essentially the same issues
and authorities was submitted because the feared
denial of such rights had actually taken place
(A22-23). The request for reconsideration was
denied by memorandum dated July 19, 1978
(R 308, E 257, A11)
On brief (3) filed on December 4, 1978, with
the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the
appellate court was ask to address these same
issues (A23-25). Their decision is set forth
A2-10). As the issues were again ignored, a
Request for Reconsideration (4) was filed on the
25th day of April, 1979, again reviewing the
state and federal issues (A25-26). The issues
were again ignored by denial of reconsideration
dated May 3, 1979 (A12).
Petition for Writ of Certioari (5) to the Court
of Appeals of Maryland was then filed on May 25,
1979 to see if that, the court of last resort in
Maryland, would answer the questions or force
10
the lower courts to answer them (A26-27). They
denied the petition because of no showing that
review was desirable and in the public interest
by order dated July 19, 1979 (A13). On August
17, 1979, a Request for Reconsideration by the
Fu’! Court (6) was filed (A27-28), it too was
denied by order dated September 28, 1979 (A14).
In summary by subject, discriminatory
application of state and federal rights and
protections was raised in all six pleadings.
The procedural content and conduct of the trial,
raised in and ignored by the trial court, was
presented in all four pleadings to the appellate
courts. The actions of the Court of Special
Appeals of Maryland was addressed in the request
for reconsideration to that court and in both pleas
to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
THE FEDERAL ISSUES ARE SUBSTANTIAL
| CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PROTECT-
IONS WERE IGNORED
Invariably the courts in domestic cases cause
the impoverishment of men so they must at some
point avoid the expense of counsel and proceed in
proper person or abandon their right to a hearing.
When they proceed in proper person, they are
treated as rebels against an established system
and with traditional sex bias are denied equality
and the protections and precedents provided by
state and federal governments, addressed in II,
the procedural safeguards of trial, set forth in III,
an independent and impartial appellate review,
covered in |V, and having the appellate courts
supervise the procedural protections employed
11
by the trial court, reviewed in V.
Discrimination against one proceeding in
proper person and because of sex is repugnant
to the Federal Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment
and can not be tolerated in a free society where
the law is not a respector of persons, for there is
little difference between anarchy, not having
rights and not being able to enforce rights.
ll. THE STATE TRIAL AND APPELLATE
COURTS SYSTEMATICALLY AND REPEATEDLY
ANSWERED LEGAL QUESTIONS AND MADE
AWARDS IN CONFLICT WITH STATE CONSTITU -
TIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES, LAWS AND
REGULATIONS
1 Maryland Rules of Procedure consider the
conducting of ex-parte communications in an inter-
parte proceeding to be a violation of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics!. Both the judge and counsel for
Respondent have placed in the record a continual
addressing of trial related subject matter in priv-
ate during and after the trial, see II] below. The
bias caused by such extrajudicial proceedings
caused violations of other Canons of Judicial
Ethics“. By the Rules, an aggravated or
persistent failure to comply with the Canons of
Judicial Ethics is a rule violation and a violation
of any of the rules is conduct prejudicial to the
proper administration of justice? - Since the
1 Maryland Ruie 1231, Canon XVI (A20)
2 Maryland Rule 1231, Canons I!I,V,XI,XXXIII
(A19-20)
3 Maryland Rule 1231, Rules 1 and 14 (A20)
4 Northern Cent. Ry. Co. v. ane Cae
48 Md. 262 1878)
12
rules have the effect of law’, Petitioners state
and federal legal rights were violated.
(2) As an officer of the court, an attorney is
prohibited from being deceitful , misrepresentation
or other conduct that would be prejudicial to the
administration of justice ; he is not to express his
opinion or otherwise introduce testimony that is
not sworn®; he is not to communicate with the
judge_in private on matters pending before the
court’ ; he is not to make false statements to the
court® 9 and on appeal he is limited to the record
below”. Counsel for Respondent continuously
made derogatory remarks and lied about Petitioner
to the court and on appeal created new evidence
(A50-54) and conducted ex-parte communications
with the court, see ||| below and A28. Rather
than rebuke and punish such conduct, the courts
condoned and rewarded it causing great harm tp
Petitioner.
(3) While the resolution of conflicting
testimony is normally within the perogative of the
trier of facts when sitting without a jury ’?, the
trier is bound to follow the evidence and may not
substitute his personal feelings for the evidence".
Perjury and conflicting statements are a crime 14
and in child custody cases considered @ serious
moral offense negating custody '9, Respondent's
Sweryterc Rute 1230, DR 1-102, A17
Baker V. Otto, 180 Md. 53, 22 A.2d 924 (1941)
6Maryland Rule’ 1230, EC 7-24,A18
7 land Rule 1230, EC 7-35, DR 7-110, A18
8 land Rule 1230, DR 7-102, A17
Klupt v. Bar Assi (O84 . 659, 80 A.2d 912
9 Silver Spring Title Co. v. Chadwick, 131 Md.
131 A.2d 489, (1957)
40 McGrath v. McGrath, 213 Md. 442, 132 A.2d
109 (1957)
13
continuous and blatent lying (A43-49) were
summarily excused and with no evidence
whatsoever against Petitioner, both parties
were considered dishonest. The conclusion by
the court is an unjustifiable discrimination in
violation of law.
(4) By state constitution "Equality of
rights under the law shall not be abridged or
denied because of sex" 14, By statute, the
mother and father of a child are the joint
natural guardians and have equal powers and
duties and neither parent has any right superior
to the other concerning custody, the court is to
give neither parent preference solely because
of his or her sex'9. The statute has been cons-
trued to mean what it says so that if the trial
court finds benefits equally ballanced, it must
delve further until some advantages are found to
be with one of the parties '©. By the award in
the present case where all of the advantages and
benefits to the children shown during the trial
were with Petitioner father (A29-36) and only
detrimental conditions were shown to exist in the
home of mother Respondem (A36-38, A54-57),
the constitution, statutory and case law of the
state have been violated in continuing custody
in the mother.
IT Loccetti v. Loccetti, 245 Md. 97 (1967)
142 Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 27, Secs.
435, 437, 439, A15-16
13 Hild v. Hild, 221 Md. 349, 157 A.2d 442 (1960)
14 Maryland Constitution, Declaration of Rights
Amendment, Article 46,A15
% ro 3 ee Code of Maryland, Article 72A, Sec 1
(A16
46 McAndrews v. McAndrews, 39 Md.App. 1,
382 A.2d 1081 (1978)
14
(5) There is no known law that prohibits the
father from being granted custody of good or
happy children or requires a father to prove
actual damages to his children in the troubled
home of the mother before he can be granted
custody (A5-6). The chancellor created new
and discriminatory custody conditions in viol-
ation of state constitution, statutes and case law,
as set forth in (4) next above.
(6) The law requires that the wishes of children,
not of tender years, be given weight as to which
home they want to live in (A21). The chancellor's
finding that the children had no preference and were
non-commital as to which home they wanted to
live in, is belied by both his own statement, best
described as inconsistent judicial double talk:
"The children are in a dilermna. They didn't
answer me as to where they would like to go;
at least didn't all of therm answer. And those
that answered had reasons for wanting to go to
one place or another that were not very
substantial." (A5)
and by the certified clear and unconditional
staternent by three of the four children that they
want to live with their father, Petitioner (A56-57).
The desires of the children were distorted and
ignored in violation of law.
(7) Under Maryland law, in addition to the
subject matter addressed in (3), (4), (5) and
(6) above, the following are further examples of
criteria given substantial weight in custody awards:
@) The physical needs of the children (A21).
b) The desires, education, good character and
moral standards of the wife (A21).
c) The religious differences of the children and
strains caused thereby in the home (A21).
As with the other issues in this case, these
15
state legal guidelines all dictated custody to
Petitioner and were violated and ignored.
(8) By law there is a two-way financial
responsibility in custody and court proceedings,
in practice it is a one way affair where the man
pays for everything.
(a) By statute the mother and father of a
child are the joint natural guardians and jointly
and severally charged with its support, care,
nurture, welfare and education! - The courts
consistently force men to make large contribu-
tions to child support, alimony and attorney fees,
even when they have no money as through voluntary
impoverishment. They refuse to force women to
make like contributions. (A21) When Petitioner
could not pay in full the large alimony and child
support payments required in 1974 and 1975, he
was found guilty of contempt of court and forced
to take a second job (A58). Respondent mother,
with children in diapers, worked full and part-
time for over fourteen years of marriage to
Petitioner . After separation, with the children
in school, she all but retired from gainful
employment, contributing little to her own
support and nothing to that of the children.
Even though the court found her able to work
(A54), they refused to make her contribute
child support as they did Petitioner.
(b) Respondent was ask in a request for
admissions, to admit the validity of a letter
(E 202, 203, Petitioners Exhibit No.9, A51-52).
She refused, so Petitioner had the expense of
bringing in the witness to verify the letter. The
court refused to charge Respondent with the
unnecessary expense.
16
(c) Whether the woman initiates or defends
a law suit, she consistently is awarded attorney
fees. In the instant case Respondent was respon-
sible for a considerable portion of the time and
expense of trial by her cross-petition for increased
support payments, found to be unwarranted and
denied. With the unstable and financially troubled
home of Respondent and stable harmoneous home
of Petitioner and desires of the children, There was
more than ample reason for Petitioner to file a
petition for modification. The court required
Petitioner to pay Respondents attorney fees
even though he could not afford one for himself,
presumably under other Maryland law Tconsist-
antly used to discriminate against men.
The trial and appellate courts continuous
systematic violation of the state constitution,
statutes, laws and rules to discriminate against
men is repugnant to the Federal Constitution,
Fourteenth Amendment and demands correction.
Ill THE TRIAL COURT DEPARTED FROM THE
ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS
There is no trial known wherein the judge is
given as much discretion and there is as little
appellate review permitted as in child custody
cases. If one side can prejudice the judge in
private, they do not have to prove their case in
public.
Justice demands a fair and impartial trial.
To insure a fair trial Federal and State Consti-
tutions and procedures allow one to address the
evidence, to explain, to confront witnesses and
17 na Annotated Code, Article 16, Sec. 5A
15
17
and cross examine, etc. It is also declared to be
unethical to lie to the court and to conduct the
trial ex-parte as addressed in |! (1) and (2) above.
Both the chancellor and Respondent's attorney
have placed in the record that ex-parte communi -
cations have taken place during and after the trial
(A28). The gullability of the chancellor to and
effectiveness of such communications are eviden-
ced by the hostility expressed in his letter to
Petitioner wherein mystery communications and
conduct resulted in the conviction and condemnation
of Petitioner.
"In June | felt my ruling was correct. My
belief was reaffirmed in July, and through Your
actions in August, | am without any doubts
whatsoever. Thank you for eradicating any
doubts or fear | may have entertained in this
matter." (R 311, E 259, A28)
With the lies told in open court, the imagination
alone would be the limit in private.
There are at least four conclusions reached by
the trial court that are so inconsistent with the
evidence they can only be explained by bias and
ex-parte generated hostilities.
1. The application of new and discriminatory
law that a father can not be granted custody of
good happy children until he can prove actual
damage to them, || (5) above.
2. That neither party was honest when there
were many instances where Respondent was
proven to be a liar (A43-49) with no proof
whatsoever against Petitioner or his witnesses.
3. That the children wouldn't answer and
didn't have a preferance as to which home they
wanted to live in when three of the four were so
upset by the decision, they certified to the court
———-— lr hl eC
18
clearly and unconditionally that they wanted to
live with their father, Petitioner, || (6) above.
4. The continuation of custody of the children
in the mothers home filled with fighting, content-
entions, immoral conduct, physical needs, etc.
when they could be living in the harmoneous
stable home of the father where the moral standards
lived are compatable with that of the children's own.
The preferential treatment by the trial court in
departing from accepted procedures is repugnant and
intolerable and demands tha strongest kind of censure.
IV THE APPELLATE COURT DEPARTED FROM
THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL
PROCEDURES
The trial court placed the appellate court in an
awkwerd position. To perpetuate judicial bias
against men, it had to affirm the award, yet it
could not accept the trial court's new discrimin-
atory law, that the father could not be granted
custody of good happy children until he could
prove actual damage to them (A4-6). Such law
clashes with state constitution, statutes and case
law as addressed in || (4) above. This necessit-
ated a perversion of the finding of the trial court
to the well established "welfare and best interest
of the child" concept.
The chancellor at no time stated or implied that
the best interest of the children was with the mother.
Such statements as"... they're doing fine with
the situation or in spite of the situation, | should
say." and speaking to Petitioner father "|'m not
saying that you haven't shown to me materially
you can provide a better home, not saying you havn't
proven to me thet perhaps the stability in the home
i ewe ast oe
19
the last couple of years has been better or more
stable than the home of Mrs. Mills ... " do
not imply that the best interest of the children
is with the mother (A5) .
The Court of Special Appeals found "It is our
conclusion that no error has been shown" (A3)
and quoted the standard for appellate review in
Maryland (A8). Ignoring the actual findings of
the trial court, the testimony and evidence, it
equated the failure to prove actual damage by the
Petitioner to a finding of the best interest of the
children being with the mother. This actually
amounted to a violation of its own conclusion
and a reversal of the findings of fact and application
of the law by the trial court. The appellate court
found benefits to the children not found by the trial
court, not found in the evidence, not found in the
testimonies and not urged by Respondent.
To further compound their error and show their
ignorance of the case, they stated Petitioner
contended the chancellor's finding of fact to be
clearly erroneous and that he alone and none of
his witnesses testimony was adverse to Respondent
and her home environment (A8). They then picked
and chose and took out of context testimony and
contradicted themselves, to justify their desired
conclusion (A8-9).
As examples of the erroneous assertions by
the appellate court:
a) Petitioner did not disagree with the chanc-
ellor on his finding of facts as to the welfare and
best interest of the children, he did believe the
findings to be grossly understated and unj ustifiably
discarded as being insignificant.
b) The detrimental conditions in Respondent's
20
home were attested to by her Bishop, by her Relief
Society President, by her own witness and were
eventually conceded by her with a feeble attempt
made to blame Petitioner for all her troubles
(A36-38). The evidence and witnesses, including
her own, testified that her statements out of court
blamed her problems on her present husband (A40-49).
c) Their quoted answer by her Bishop of improved
conditions in her home (AQ) did not fool anyone in
court. It was addressed in opening remarks by
Petitioner and the next question by the court revealed
that the improvements in her home came in prepar-
ation for trial after the petition for modification
was filed over six months previously (A57).
Such departure from accepted and usual judicial
procedure to perpetuate sexual bias and deprivation
of children's welfare and best interests is a viol-
ation of due process and equal protection and
repugnant to constitutional guarantees and demand
reprimand.
V THE APPELLATE COURT SANCTIONED THE
TRIAL COURT'S DEPARTURE FROM THE USUAL
COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
The function of the appellate court is to act as
an independent and impartial body, to review the
proceedings, the finding of facts in a case tried
without a jury, the application of the law and the
ultimate award of the trial court to see that the
law was complied with’8, In the instant case the
appellate courts did not perform their duty, but
rather functioned as defender and protector of the
mother and the trial court 19, By overt acts they
distorted the evidence, the findings of the trial
court and the application of law by the trial court,
as set forth in |V above, and completely ignored
21
the violations relating to the integrity of the trial
and ex-parte proceedings, addressed in || (1) and
(2) and II| above.
The condonation and sanctification of the trial
court's deni al of a fair and impartial trial, due
process and equal protection by both appellate
courts; and the Court of Appeals of Maryland
condoning and sanctioning the Court of Special
Appeals of Maryland perverting the trial court's
finding of fact and application of the law to
perpetuate sex bias, is repugnant to both state
and federal guarantees of due process and equal
protection. ‘
This case presents substantial federal questions
that go to the very corner stone of our whole system
of justice, the sanctity of a fair and impartial trial,
and to the interpretation and application of the due
process and equal protection clauses of the Four -
teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
as it applies to state courts. It is but an example
of the many ways men and children as classes of
citizens are systematically abused and discrimin-
ated against in state domestic and appellate
courts in defiance of their rights supposedly
protected by both federal and state constitutions,
statutes laws and rules. Because of the attitudes
developed throughout the judicial system toward
18 Maryland Rules of Procedure, Rules 886 and
1086 (A17)
Davis v. Davis, 280 Md. 119 (1977), cert.
denied, 434 U.S. 939 (1978)
19 Montgomery Cty. Dept. Soc. Serv. v. Sanders,
38 Md.App. 406, 381 A.2d 1154 (1978)
22
domestic cases, the trial judge is no longer subject
to the law or accountable for it, but rather he is the
law. Innocent men and children are in ever increas-
ing numbers being subjected to judicial bias and
the resulting harm done thereby. As a result of
the Honorable High Court intervening in and super-
vising criminal proceedings, criminals receive a
fair and impartial trial and their rights to due
process and equal protection are insured. In this,
the year declared by the United Nations to be "The
International Year of the Child", the Honorable High
Court can do more for the children of this country
than is accomplished by all the declarations and
proclimations made by demanding that men and
children in domestic courts be granted the same
legal and constitutional protections as women and
criminals.
CONCLUSION
By their silence on the constitutional issues
and violation of state laws, the state courts have
taken the intolerable position that a man proceed-
ing in proper person, and children he is trying to
help, have no rights in a domestic case. Where-
fore, the Honorable High Court is ask to affirm the
Maryland Courts in the five areas set forth or to
inform them that men and children do have a right
to a fair and impartial trial in domestic cases.
Probable jurisdiction should be noted, and the case
given plenary consideration, with briefs on the
merits and oral argument, for resolution of the
questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Clyde |. Coughenour
16607 Sutton Place
Woodbridge, Virginia
22191 pro se
At
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE
GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND
FILED
WANDA F. (COUGHENOUR) MILLS JUL 19 1978
Plaintiff
vs DR 73-362
CLYDE |. COUGHENOUR
Defendant
ORDER ON PETITION AND CROSS PETITION
This cause having come on for hearing on the
23rd, 28th and 30th days of June, 1978 on the
defendant's Petition for Modification and other
motions and the plaintiff's Gross Petition for
Modification, upon consideration of the evidence
presented, it is by the Circuit Court for Prince
George's County, sitting on equity, this 19th
day of July 1978.
ORDERED, that the defendant's Petition
for Modification and other motions be and the same
are hereby denied, and it is further ,
ORDERED, that the plaintiff's Cross Petition
for Modification be and the same is hereby denied,
and it is further,
ORDERED, that the defendant, Clyde 1.
Coughenour, pay the sum of five hundred ($500 .00)
dollars toward the attorney's fees incurred by the
cross petitioner, Wanda F. Mill, and it is further,
ORDERED, that the defendant pay the costs of
this proceeding.
Rotert H. Mason
JUDGE
A2
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
No. 854
September Term, 1978
CLYDE |. COUGHENOUR
WANDA F. MILLS
Morton
Moylan
Moore,
JJ.
PER CURIAM
Filed: April 16, 1979
A3
This appeal involves yet another controversy
between divorced parents over the custody of minor
children. In the instant case, the former wife was
granted custody of the children more than six years
ago. In late 1977, the former husband filed a
petition for modification in the Circuit Court for
Prince George's County seeking a transfer of custody
to himself. The wife countered with a petition for an
increase in support payments. The court (Mason, J.)
heard extensive testimony over a period of two full
days in mid-June 1978, and thereafter heard oral
argument on June 30, 1978. At the conclusion of
oral argument, the chancellor delivered an oral
opinion in which the requests for modification by
both parties were denied and the court ordered a
payment by the former husband of attorney s' fees
in the amount of $500.
The former wife has not appealed. However, as
will be noted, the former husband has mounted a
broad attack upon the action of the chancellor. It
is our conclusion that no error has been shown.
|
The appellant and appellee were married on
February 1, 1958. During the early years of their
marriage, the wife worked to assist her husband in
attending and graduating from college and law
school. The former husband received a bachelor of
science and mechanical engineering degree from
the University of Maryland and a law degree from
the University of Baltimore School of Law. His
primary occupation has been with the United States
Patent Office. |
4. Both on brief and in oral argument,
appellant appeared pro se.
- 2- A4
The parties separated on January 29, 1973, and
on July 7, 1973, the wife was awarded a decree of
divorce a mensa. An absolute divorce was granted
on August 8, 1974. Custody of the parties' four
children was awarded to the appellee. The children
involved in the custody dispute are two boys, ages
17 and 11, and two giris, ages 15 and 13. Since
the divorce, the former husband has remarried and
resides with his second wife and her 8-year-old
daughter, whom he has adopted, in Woodbridge,
Virginia. The former wife, also remarried, resides
with her present husband, a young child by her
second merriage, and the four Coughenour children,
in Glen Burnie, Maryland. Appellant and his
present spouse, as well as appellee and the
children of their union, are members of the Church
of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.
Appellant produced 12 witnesses, including
two Bishops of the Church, the Annapolis Ward,
and members of the congregation, including
couples who are his neighbors in Virginia. The
former wife presented, in addition to her own
testimony, the testimony of 7 witnesses,, including
a.neighbor in Glen Burnie who is also an ordained
minister of the Baptist Church, her sister, brother,
sister-in-law, and brother-in-law, and another
neighbor who belongs to appellee's church and was
her "visiting teacher."
Set forth below are the findings and conclusions
of the chancellor recited from the bench at the
conclusion of oral argument:
"THE COURT: Gentlemen, I'm going to
Wi nd poled vB ecleged short. | ae stened to all
; some evidence perhaps
exceeded the purpose of this hearing. But’ in
trying to get a flavor for the entire situation, |
allowed evidence in that might not otherwise be
admissible.
-3- AS
There is no question in the court's mind
that there is still a great deal of bad feelings
between the two ies in this particular
incident and that perhaps is having an affect
on the children.
| enjoyed only one portion of this entire
case, and that was my opportunity to talk to
the children. A good portion of my ruling is
coming from that opportunity .
Those are four of the most delightful
children | have ever seen in a long period of
time. They are happy, somewhat bashful,
wate much ‘@ credit..
oth of the individuals before the Court
ought to be very proud of those four children.
The children are in a dilernna. They didn't
answer me as to where they would like to go;
at least didn't all of them answer. And those
that answered had reasons for wanting to go to
one place or another that were not very
substantial .
They don't want to be in the middle. They
love both of their parents; think both of their
parents have a good home and both of the
parents provide for them.
It's a very difficult situation and they
knew what they were coming in there for and
were not able to answer me positively one way
or another.
But they're doing fine with the situation
or in spite of the situation, | should say.
Because, obviously, from the testimony
Mr. Coughenhour has said it was clear as to
which person not to believe. | have some
question about some of the testimony from
both sides.
| think there was a tendency to uistort
things in a way favorable and that's not
unusual, happens everyday in the courtroom.
But it's not as clear to the Court as
perhers it is to Mr. Coughenhour or Mrs.
ills as to what side the Court should be
taking.
In conclusion, my finding is as follows:
| don't find, Mr. Coughenhour, that you
have shown me that the children have been
harmed in any way and should be removed
from that home.
I'm not saying that you haven't shown to
me materially you sah ries a better home,
not saying you haven't proven to me that
perhaps the stability in the home the last
couple of years has not been better or more
stable than the home of Mrs. Mills, but those
children are surviving; not only surviving, they
are something that you've got to be proud of.
Oe ee ee ‘
So sade
A6 A7
i ung who Vi. Appellant and ellant's wife are better
down tal arae CoulGn’ “sey f& yo uit | signed prepared to influence, train and care for the
an order panting wheat Png asking, | don't children than appellee.
know what | could re wn there justifying ~
changing those children, because they are Vile A , ‘
j ong ‘ ellee's husband has failed to appear
getting si ee Ss ane, state his position with respect to the
at < c ren.
Vill. The appellee is a chronic liar, if nota
perjurer, whose testimony, like the sands,
shifts with the wind of desire.
They are very fine, fine young people, So
I'm denying your request for modification of the
i'm also denying modification to change as
tor as support pexeneres are concemed i. 'm 4 IX. The chancellor's finding and the law
not convince t cross-petitioner has mace : A. The physical conditions of appellant's
out Nour for = Ba = ag in child support. home were ignored.
The only thing I'm granting is, Mr. Brooke, B. The desires of the children were ignored.
"Il grant an order as to attorney's fees in the . C. The failure of appellee's husband to
amount of $500. § : appeer was ignored.
Thank you, genliemen. D. The desires, education, good character
The scope and intensity of appellant's disagree- and moral standards of appellant's wife
' . eS were ignored.
ment with the disposition of the case by the chancellor GES ; ;
j : ' E. The religious differences of the children
are shown by the assignment of error contained in and strains caused thereby were ignored.
appellant's brief. They are as follows: F. The dishonesty of appellee has been
"The chancellor erred in denying a modification ignored.
of decree by not transferring custody of the
children in view of the overwhelming weight of G. The evidence and best interest of the
evidence showing advent es. the children would children have been ignored.
receive with appe an isacdvantages H. The chancellor has ignored practical!
a ~— with pr ange Si aS all guidelines for custody award .
- The appellant’ s home is stable, Mlle |. Under the circumstances of this case
with love, harmony, happiness, warmth, the award of attorney fees to appellee is
mutual respect and a spiritual atmosphere. unjust and an abuse of discretion."
Il. Appellee's witnesses, with one exception, i
lg hh beclowdhs fer borg al ag Pray th ghee In our judgment, a fair reading of the chancellor's
lll. The physical needs of the children are not | statement to the appellant, that he had not demonst-
being bay is spe ty ee ae to m — rated "that the children had been harmed in any way
agement and neglect of priorities; Bu y :
would be provided for in appellant's home. and osha pi sebesale from sive opts AB rn it
IV. The atmo e in appellee's home is consti ne a inding that it was in . st interests
detrimental to the rearing of children, being of the minor children that they remain in the custody
pit a beaming. ighting and of the mother with whom they had been residing for
V. The children's moral code is being lived a substantial period of time and whose health,
in appellant's home where @ spiritual atmos- character, and welfare had obviously impressed him
phere exists, but the code bei lived in favorab!
appellee's home clashes with the beliefs of =
the children and is a bad influence on them.
-6<« AB
The standard for review of child custody proceed-
ings by appellate courts has been clearly defined by
the Court of Appeals in Davis v. Davis, 280 Md. 119
(1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 939 (1978). In
Davis, the Court concluded that:
"In sum, we point out three distinct aspects
of review in child custody disputes. When the
ellate court scrutinizes factual findings, the
clearly erroneous standerd of Rule 886 and 1086
applies. If it appears that the chancellor erred
as to matters of law, further proceedings in the
trial court will ordinarily be required unless the
error is determined to be harmiess. Finally,
when the appellate court views the ultimate
conclusion of the chancellor founded et sound
legal principles and based upon factua findings
that are not cleariy erroneous, the chancellor's
decision should be disturbed only if there has
been a clear abuse of discretion."
id. at 125-26. Therefore, assuming there are no
clearly erroneous factual findings, the ultimate
conclusion as to the custody of the child or
children is within the sound discretion of the
chancellor. Ross v. Hoffman, 280 Md. 172, 186
(1977).
The lower court used the correct standard to
determine who was to have custody of the children:
whet is in their best interests. Kauten v. Kauten,
257 Md. 10, 11 (1970); Mullinix v. Mullinix,
12 Md. App. 402, 409 (1971). The appellant,
however, contends that the chancellor was clearly
erroneous in his findings of fact. In evaluating
his contention, we note that the testimony of none
of appellant's witnesses, except his own, was
adverse to the natural mother or the home environ-
ment in which the’four children are being raised.
Indeed, appellant's witness, Bishop Branson
Lowman, in response to a question from the court as
to which of the two homes he regarded as the
"preferential" home, testified:
» Ve AG
") was originally of the opinion that the
children woul have been better off in Mr.
Coughenour's home, and now | am not sure
and the reason that | am not sure is that |
hat there has been some improved
thi ity in the Mills home. | don't know
for wnat reason. The stability there from
where | see it has improved, the children's
attendance is good in church, and | could
t say that she was an unfit mother.”
no
(Emphasis added)
The appelient's other witnesses, his
neighbors and fellow church members, were
familiar with appellant's family and home
surroundings and testified favorably in these
respects. None of them, however, with the
exception of fellow church member, Edna
Durant, appeared to have any contact with
appellee or her husband or their home surround-
ings. Mrs. Durant, also a member of the Church
of the Latter Day Saints and president of the
Relief Society, had visited appellee's home in
connection with financial assistance which hed
been rendered the family, and had learned of
some friction between the natural mother and her
present husband.
Appellee's witnesses generally testified to
thestability of appellee's home and her merital
relationship. Testifying in her own behalf,
appellee stated that although some problems had
at one time existed between her and Mr. Mills,
her present husband, it was her former husbend,
Mr. Coughenour, who was primarily responsible,
because of hi s constant harassment.
We consider it unnecessary to trace, in
elaborate detail, the testimony from both sides.
What we have set forth is sufficient to di gclose-
as the chancellor himself openly stated.- conflicts
in the testimony , particularly in that of the former
spouse, and it is these conflicts which it is the
eee eee ee ee
A10
perogative of the trier of facts to reconcile and
resolve. His findings of fact, based upon
o8-
such'testimony, are to be accorded great weight
because he has the best opportunity to observe the
parties and their witnesses, their temperament, and
demeanor and so to decide what is in the best
intereste of the affected children. mer
County v. Sanders, 38 Md. App. 406, 418-19 (1978).
Consequently, applying fully the principles of
Davie v. Davie, above quoted, the basis of appellant's
contention, that the chancellor erred, must ultimately
be that he abused hie discretion in refusing to transfer
custody from the mother to himeelf. The chancellor,
however, based his ultimate decision upon his own
observation of the children and upon his interviews
with them in chambers as well as frorn the evidence
of their deportment, their achooling, their industry,
and their loyalty to and affection for both parents.
in sum, the chancellor exercised sound discretion.
Hie conclusion to continue custody in the natural
mother was based upon findings of fact which we
could not find to be clearly erroneous and upon e
determination of whet was in the best interests of
the children. The record revealed insufficient
clreurnstances of change to werrant 6 reversal .
Neither do we find any abuse of discretion in the
awerd to appellee of « $500 counsel fee. We
therefore affirm.
ORDER AFFIRMED ;
APPELLANT TO PAY THE COSTS.
Aq
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S
COUNTY, MARYLAND
WANDA F, COUGHENOUR MILLS
Plaintiff,
ve. Equity No. DA
73-362
OLYDE |. COUGHENOUR
Defendant
MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT
July 19, 1976
Exceptions to Opinion Motion for Reconsideration
or New Trial Under Rule 690 filed by the Petitioner-
Defendant, Clyde |. Coughenour, in the above
entitled cause is hereby denied.
Robert hi. Mason
Judge
Robert tt. Mason
Associate Judge
Copies sent to:
William E. Brooke
Attorney for the Plaintiff-Respondent
08 Old S
Bl etric 6 ven" Merviend, 200 24
Clyde |. Coughenour, Defendant-Petitioner
16607 Sutton Place
Woodbridge, Virginia, 22191
Assignment Office
Margeret S. Owens
A112
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
Annapolis, Md. 21401
Howerd E . telephone 269-3646 David L.
Friedman Terzian
clerk chief deputy
ers A.
py! Fy oa
May 3, 1979
Mr. Clyde |. Coughenour
16607 Sutton Place
Woodbridge, Virginia 22191
Re: Clyde |. Coughenour v. Wanda F. Mills
No, 854, Septernber Term, 1978
Deer Mr. Coughenour:
Your motion for reconsideration was presented,
considered and denied by the Panel on May 2, 1979.
The mandate is due to be issued on May 16,1979,
and at that time, the record on appeal will be
returned to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for
Prince George 's County.
Very truly yours,
Howard E. Friedman
Clerk
HEF /nze
cc: William &. Brooke, Esquire
A13
In the
OLYDE |. COUGHENOUR Court of Appeals
of Maryland
Petition Docket No.117
September Term, 1979
(No. 854, September Term,
1978 Court of Special
Appeals)
WANDA F. MILLS
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition for writ of
certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals in the
above entitied case, it is
ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland,
that the petition be, and it is hereby, denied as
there has been no showing that review by certioar|
ie desirable and in the public interest.
/s/ Fobert C. Murphy
Chief Judge
Date: July 19, 1979.
A14
CLYDE |. COUGHENOUR
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS
te OF
MARYLAND
WANDA F. MILLS Petition Docket No. 117
September Term, 1979
(no. 854-September Term,
1978 Court of Special
Appeals)
ORDER
Upon consideration of the request for reconsideration
filed in the above entitled case, it is this 28th day
of September, 1979,
ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland,
that the request be, and it is hereby, denied.
/s/ Robert C. Murphy
Chief Judge
A15
MARYLAND'S CONSTITUTION, STATUTES AND
RULES ARE ALL FOUND IN THE ANNOTATED
CODE OF MARYLAND 1957 EDITION with
volume and page as cited.
MARYLAND CONSTITUTION, DE GCLARATION OF
RIGHTS, EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT,
ARTICLE 46 provides:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be
abridged or denied because of sex.
(found in Vol. 9A, p. 126)
Meryland Article 16, Sec 5 A:
Award of costs and counsel fees in proceedings
relating to child support, custody, visitation,
arrearages, or otherwise to enforce decree
pertaining thereto.
In all cases where a person makes an application
for a decree or modification of a decree with
respect to the custody, the amount of support or
visitation rights concerning a child or children
of the parties, or files any form of proceeding to
recover arrearages of child support or otherwise
to enforce such decree, the court, after consider-
ing the financial status of both parties, their
respective needs and whether there was substant-
ial justification for instituting or defending the
proceeding, may make such award of costs and
counsel fees to either party as shall be just and
proper under all the circumstances.
(found in Vol. 2A, P. 15)
Maryland Article 27, Sec. 435:
What shall be deemed perjury,
An oath or affirmation, if made wilfully and
falsely in any of the following cases, shall
deemed perjury: first in all cases where false
sweering would be penur at common law;
secondly, in all affidavits required by law to
be taken; Thirdly, in all affidavits to accounts
or claims mede for the purpose of inducing any
A16
court or officer to pass the accounts or claims;
fourthly, in all affidavits required to be made to
reports and returns made to the General Assembly
or any officer of the govenment; fifthly, in all
pa Shoes vl or oct pale made pursuant to the
ee (found in Vob 3A, p. 386)
Sec. 437, Contradictory statements,
Any person who shall make oath of affirmation to
two contradictory statements, each of them in one
of the cases enumerated in Sec. 435 and in either
case shall make oath or affirmation wilfully and
falsely, shall be deemed guilty of perjury; and to
sustain an indictment under this section it shall
be sufficient to allege and prove that one of the
said two contradictory statements is or must be
false and wilful, without specifying which one.
(found in Vol. 3A, p. 388)
Sec. 439, Penalty,
Every person who shall be convicted of perjury or
subordination of perjury shall be sentenced to
i risonment in the jail or penitenti for not
more than ten yeers .- (al do Pp. a8) >
Maryland Article 72 A, Sec. 1, Parent and Child,
Natural guardianship.
The father and mother are the joint natural pare
ians of their minor child and are jointly an
severally charged with its support, care, nurture,
welfare and education. They shall have equal
powers and duties, and neither parent has any
right superior to the Mr of the other concernin
the child's va rey A f either the father or mother
dies, or dons his or her family, or is incapable
of acting, the guardianship devolves upon the other
perent. Where the parents live apart, the court may
awerd the guardianship of the child to either of
them. Provided: The provisions of this article
shall not be demed to affect the existing law
relative to the appointment of a third person aa
guardian of the person of the minor where the
parents are unsuitable, or the child's interests
would be adversely affected by remaining under
the natural guardianship of its parent or parents.
(found Vol. 6, p. 231)
A17
Maryland Rules of Procedure
Rules 886 and 1086
Review when action tried by lower court without jury
When an action has been tried by the lower court
without a jury, this court will review the case
upon both the law and the evidence, but the
judgment of the lower court will not be set aside
on the evidence unless clearly erroneous and due
regard will be given to the opportunity of the
lower court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.
(found in Vol. 9B, pp. 669, 769)
Rule 1230. Code of Frofessional Responsibility
The code of Professional Responsibility of the
American Bar Association, as set forth in Appendix
F of the Maryland Rules, is hereby adopted.
‘(found in Vol. 9C, p. 397)
Appendix F, Code of Professional Responsibility
Canon 1, A lawyer should assist in maintaining the
integrity and competence of the legal profession.
(found in Vol. 9C, p. 507)
Disciplinary Rules
DR 1-102 Misconduct
(A) A lawyer shall not:
(1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule.
(2) Circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through
actions of another.
(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
(5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial
to the administration of justice.
(found in Vol. 9C, p. 507)
DR 7-102 Representing a client within the bounds of
the law
(A) In hie representation of a client a lawyer shall
not:
(4) Knowingly use perjured testimony or false
evidence.
(5) Knowingly make a false statement of law
or fact.
(6) Participate in the creation or preservation
of evidence when he knows or it is obvious
that the evidence is false.
(7) Counsel or assist his client in conduct that
the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent.
(found in Vol. 9C, p. 532)
A18
DR 7-110 Contact with officials. A19
(B) In an adversary proceeding, a lawyer shal| which he presides in circumstances which might
‘ have the effect or give the appearance of granting
not communicate, or cause another to undue advantage to one party, For example, a
lawyer should not communicate with a tribunal
by a writing unless a copy thereof is promptly
delivered to opposing counsel or to the adverse
party if he is not represented by a lawyer.
Ordinarily an oral communication by a lawyer
with a judge or hearing officer should be made
only upon adequate notice to opposing counsel, |
or, if there be none to the opposing party. A
lawyer should not condone or lend himself to
private importunities by another with a judge or
hearing officer on behalf of himself or his client.
(found in Vol. 9C, p. 531)
communicate, as to the merits of the cause
with a judge or an official before whom the
proceeding is pending, except;
(1) In the course of official proceedings in
_ _ the cause.
(2) In writing if he promptly delivers a copy
of the writings to opposing counsel or to
the adverse party if he is not represented
by a lawyer.
(3) Orally upon adiquate notice to opposing
counsel or to the adverse party if he is
not represented by a lawyer.
(4) As otherwise authorized by law.
(found in Vol. 9C, p.535)
Canon 7, A lawyer should represent a client zealously
within the bounds of the law
Ethical Considerations
EC 7-24 In order to bring about just and informed
decisions, evidentiary and procedural rules
have been established by tribunals to permit
the inclusions of relevant evidence and argument
and the exclusion of all other considerations. The
expressions by a lawyer of his personal opinion
as to the justness of a cause, as to the credibility
of a witness, as to the culpability of a civil litigant,
or as to the guilt or innocence of an accused is not
a proper subject for argument to the trier of fact.
it is improper as to factual matters because
admissable evidence possessed by a lawyer should
be presented only as sworn testimony. It is
improper as to all other matters because, were
the rule otherwise, the silence of a lawyer on 4
given occasion could be construed unfavorably to
his client. However, a lawyer may argue on his
analysis of the evidence for any position or
conclusion with respect to any of the foregoing
matters. (found in Vol. 9C, p. 530)
Rule 1231 Canons and Rules of Judicial Ethics
The Canons and Rules of Judicial Ethics, as
herein set forth, are adopted as Rules of this
Court governing the conduct of all judges
referred to in Rule 13 of the Rules of Judicial
Ethics. (found Vol. 9C, p. 398)
CANONS OF JUDICIAL ETHICS
lll. Constitutional Obligations
It is the duty of all judges in the United States
to support the federal Constitution and that of
the state whose laws they administer, in and
apply fundamental limitations and guarantees.
(found Vol. 9C, p. 398)
V. Essential Conduct,
A judge should be temperate attentive, patient,
impartial, and, since he is to administer the law,
and apply it to the facts, he should be studious
of the principles of the law and diligent in
endeavoring to ascertain the facts. (p. 399)
XI. Unprofessional Conductof Attorneys and Judges
A judge should take or initiate appropriate
disciplinary measures against a judge or lawyer
EC 7-35 All litigants and lawyers should have access ee ae) a an eee Fey
to tribunals on a equal basis. Generally, in
adversary proceedings a lawyer should not commun-
icate with a judge relative to a matter pending beforg
or which is to be brought before, a tribunal over
A20
XVI Ex Parte Communications
A judge should not permit private interviews,
arguments, or communications designed to
influence his judicial action, where interests to
beaffected thereby are not represented before him,
except in cases where provision is madeby law
for ex parte application.
While the conditions under which briefs of
argument are to be received are largely matters
of local rule or practice, he should not permit the
contents of a brief presented to him to be concealed
from opposing lawyers. Ordinarily all commun-
ications of lawyers to tne judge intended or
calculated to influence action should be made
known to opposing counsel.
A judge, however, may obtain the advice of a
disinterested expert on the law applicable to a
proceeding before him if he gives notice to the
parties of the person consulted and the substance
of the advice, and affords the parties reasonable
opportunity to respond. (p. 401)
XXXIl1 A Summary of Judicial Obligation
In every particular his conduct should be above
reproach. He should be conscientious, studious,
thorough, courteous, patient, punctual, just,
impartial, fearless of public clamor, regardiess
of pups praise, and indifferent to private
political or partisan influences; he should admin-
ister justice according to law, and deal with his
appointments as a public trust; ***. (p. 406)
RULES OF JUDICIAL ETHICS
4. An aggravated or persistent failure to comply
with the Canons of Judicial Ethics shall be deemed
a rule violation. (p. 407)
14. Violation cf.any of these rules is conduct
prejudicial to the proper administration of justice
within the meaning of Maryland Rule 1227 (Removal
or Retirement of Judges). (p. 410)
————
nie ae
A21
Maryland case law requires the wishes of children not
of tender years to be considered:
Wilhelm v. Wilhelm, 214 Md. 80, 133 A.2d 423
(1957) ; Trenton v. Christ, 216 Md. 418, 140
A.2d 660 (1958); Franklin v. Franklin, 257 Md.
678, 264 A.2d 829 (1970) ; Sullivan v. Ausiaen-
der, 12 Md. App. 1, 276 A.2d 698 (1971); Ross
<a
v. Pick, 199 Md. 341, 86 A.2d 463 (1952).
Maryland case law requires the physical needs of the
children to be considered: :
Melton v. Connolly, 219 Md. 184, 148 A.2d 387,
(1959); Daubert v. Daubert , 239 Md. 303, 211 A.2d
323 (1965); Cornwall v.:Cornwall, 244 Md. 674, 224
A.2d 870 (1966).
Maryland case law requires the desires, education,
good character and moral standards of the wife to be
considered:
Glick v. Glick, 232 Md. 244, 192 A.2d 791 (1963) ;
Insogna v. Insogna, 229 Md. 33, 181 A.2d 677
Meryland case law requires religious differences and
strains to be considered:
Daubert v. Daubert, 239 Md. 303, 211 A.2d 323
(1965).
Maryland holds men responsible for monies even when
they voluntarily impoverish themselves:
Donigan v. Donigan, 208 Md. 511 (1956); Pet v.
Pet, 238 Md. 492, 209 A.2d 572 (1965); Colburn V.
Goulburn, 15 Md. App. 503, 292 A.2d 121 (1972).
A22
HOW THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS WERE RAISED
BELOW
The federal questions were raised (1) in
legal memorandum filed at the commencement
of trial, (2) in an Exceptions ... and Motion
for Reconsideration filed with the trial court,
(3) in brief to the Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland, (4) in a Request for Reconsideration
to the finding of the Court of Special Appeals
of Maryland, (5) in Petition for Writ of Certioari
to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, and (6) in
Request for Reconsideration to the Court of
Appeals of Maryland. Examples from each are:
(1) Excerpt from "Legal Memorandum..."
to the trial court filed before opening statement
on June 23, 1978, in DR 73-362 Prince George's
Circuit Court (R 290-294):
"1. The courts are required to treat both
sexes equally:
(a) This is required by the equal protection
clause and the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. See Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71,
92 S. Ct. 251, 30 L. Ed. 2d 225 (1971).
(b) It is required by Article 46 of the
Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constit-
ution.
(c) It is specifically required in child
custody cases by Article 72A, Sec. 1, of the
Annotated Code of Maryland. See McAndrews
v. McAndrews , 390 Md.App. 1 (1978) ."
Other law was addressed including the
contribution of women.
(2) Excerpt from "Exceptions to Opinion
Motion for Reconsideration or New Trial Under
Rule 690" filed July 11, 1978 with the trial
“a ‘
le es pe Ea ae Re ee ee Se
aww
A23
court (R 303-305). |
"4. That the wrong law was applied in the
awai'd of custody in that the father is to be
granted equal rights. and granted due process
and equal protection and to be given equal
treatment and consideration in determining
custody of children. Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution; Reed v. Reed,
404 U.S. 71.-.-(1971); Article 46 of the
Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constit-
ution; Article 72A, Sec. 1 of the Annotated
Code of Maryland; McAndrews .-- a.
Other law, the contribution of women, etc.
was addressed.
(3) Excerpts from Petitioner's Brief to the
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, filed
December 4, 1978, September Term 1978,
No. 854:
From page 2, QUESTIONS PRESENTED,
"4. Wheather the Chancellor denied the
father, appellant his legal, statutory and
constitutional rights to be treated equally
when he denied custody of the children to the
father until he could prove the children were
being harmed in the unstable home of the’
mother, appellee?
4. Whether the Chancellor denied the
children, not of tender yeers, their legal,
statutory and constitutional rights to live in
the stable home of appellant, their father,
as opposed to the unstable home of their
mother, appellee, because their reasons
for wanting to live with him were not very
substantial ?*
A24
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
7. Whether State Authority violated
appellant's and the children's rights to
due process and equal protection under
the law and certain State Rights and
Civil Liberty guarantees?"
On pages 2 and 3, U.S. Const. Amend.
XIV, Sec. 1 was duplicated and on page 5: .
"This appeal was taken because the Circuit
Court for Prince George's County has failed
to grant appellant and his children the due
process and equal protection granted to them
by both the Federal Government and State
Government as provided in their Constitutions,
statutes and case law" (citations included
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal
Constitution and Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld,
420 U.S. 636 (1975).
On pages 18 and 19 of the Brief:
"The effectiveness and irregularity of such
fabrications may be viewed in the statement
made to appellant by the Chancellor in his
letter of August 9, 1978:
"In June | felt my ruling was correct.
My belief was reaffirmed in July, and
through your actions in August, | am now
without any doubts or fear | may have
entertained in this matter. (E 259)"
The only communication in this case in
July was Exceptions filed on July 11, 1978,
(E 254-256) and statement by the children
filed on July 25, 1978 (E 258). There was no
communication in early August. Who was the
source of information? What was it? Where was
the due process and equal protection granted by
the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
RAR Os aed ct i tae
Aecenen’
sleemeinnmerermeeteineriiie an tee ere ER ee
I St tt he
etn ease,
A25
The criminal is afforded the protection of
being confronted with the charges against him
and given the opportunity to see and heer the
evidence and witnesses against him, and to
rebut and cross-examine, and is afforded the
protection of 4 jury trial; but a father looking
after the welfare of his children gets none of
these.
If one will tell the stories set forth in VIII
above under oath what would be the stories
told outside the court room?
The Chancellor has not only failed to punish
such conduct, but has condoned and rewarded
it by placing it on a per with appellant, his
witnesses and all the evidence. Is a trial to be
decided on the facts or by the best and biggest
liar: "
On pages 25 and 26 contribution by women
is addressed.
(4) Excerpts from Request for Reconsider-
ation to the Court of Special Appeals of Mary-
land filed April 25, 1979:
From page 1,
"This appeal was filed and the time and
expense invested that specific legal questions
be answered. The Honorable Court in its haste
to dismiss and bury it have denied appellant
his right to review and to be given the answers
to these questions. The decision rendered is
totally irrelevant to the questions at issue and
is in and of itself a contradiction.
** *
3. Is it a violation of due process end
equal protection to allow one side in an inter-
parte proceeding to conduct the trial in-part
ex-parte?"
A26
From page 4,
"THE ISSUE OF DUE PROCESS AND
EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW HAS
BEEN IGNORED
Can an attorney for one side in an inter-
party proceeding go outside the courtroom
(eg. E 298) and so prejudice the trier of the
facts and renderer of a discretionary award,
with no communication to or chance for
rebuttal by the other side, that he makes
derogatory remarks to the other side in the
record (E 259), and still have the other side
considered to have been afforded due process
and equal protection under the law."
(5) Excerpt from Petition for Writ of
Certioari in the Court of Appeals of Maryland,
filed May 25, 1979; September Term 1979,
No. 117, °
From page 2,
"4. In a child custody trial where the judge
is grant ed unlimited discretionary power with
practically no appellate review, can the attorney
for one side lie to the courts and conduct the
trial ex-parte in secret in part and bias the
judge and still have the other side considered
to have been granted a fair and impartial trial?"
On pages 3, 5-12, 14 and 15 the constitut-
ional issues were addressed.
From page 7,
"Such conduct is forbidden by the due
process and equal protection clauses of the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution,
by the Code of Professional Responsibility and
by the Canons of Judicial Ethics as set forth
by the Maryland Rules of Procedure, ***"
A27
From page 11,
'The findings of the Court of Special
Appeals is so strained, illogical and replete
with errors and repugnant to the finding of the
trial court that it is useless in deciding the
issues on appeal and confuses those simple
issues. ...Their ignoring the issues and facts
and applying the law to their own non-existent
phantom facts amounts to a refusal to review
and a denial of due process and equal protection
under the’ law. ..."
Respondents failure to contribute child
support is addressed on pages 3 and 12.
(6) Excerpts from Request for Reconsider-
ation to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, filed
August 17, 1979:
"The petition was filed because of violations
to the most basic of rights, the right to a fair
and impartial trial. This is of great concern to
everyone who enters the courtroom. The conc-
epts involved were considered to be of enough
importance by the Honorable Court to include
in the Maryland Rules of Practice the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Canons of
Judicial Ethics. ... Equality as important and
affecting thousands of trials is the issue of
class discrimination forbidden bu state and
federal constitutions, rules, statutes and
case law. .--
When ex-parte prosecution is permitted, and
a father is required to prove actual damage to a
child in addition to best interest and welfare,
and children's desires are ignored, and a mother
after having regular employment for 14 years of
merriage is permitted to contribute nothing to
the support of her children and allowed to
A28
collect attorney fees for justified litigation and
the Court of Special Appeals is permitted to
ignore the facts and findings of the trial court
and create its own phantom issues rather than
addressing those raised on appeal; the whole
leguslative and judicial system is shown to
be a farce."
EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS
There were significant and continuing ex-parte
communications with the court during and after
the trial.
In final argument on June 30, 1978, a day
with no prior proceedings in the courtroom,
the attorney for Respondent stated (T 361,
E 298):
"Incidentally, that particular point | made
this morning about urine, the reason that
wasn't brought in--
MR. COUGHENOUR: Objection.
Mr. BROOKE: Something that happened
when she and he were merried, that she had
to check his urine. But any way, | didn't
realize that when it was brought up before
that's what it was."
The judge placed in the record a letter
dated August 9, 1978 that included the
following paragraph (R 311, E 259),
"In June | felt my ruling was correct. My
belief was reaffirmed in July, and through your
actions in August, | am without any doubts
whatsoever. Thank you for eradicating any doubts
or fear | may have entertained in this matter."
A29
PETITIONERS HOME WAS SHOWN TO BE
IDEAL FOR CHILD REARING
Petitioners witnesses were knowledgable of the
conditions in his home and warm relationship
with the children. The only knowledgable
witness on her home, William Wolfe, called by
Respondent, was quite familiar with both parties
and testified that the children's best interest
lie with Petitioner. Excerpts follow:
Bishop Condie (T 34-37,E 14-17)
cet ee ee ee - ~
Q How long have Clyde and Lorraine Coughenour
been members of your -unit?
A As | recall, approwimately three years.
Q In your interviews and in your association
with Mr. and Mrs. Coughenour, has there
ever come a time when you had any reason to
believe that they were not living the standards
of the church?
A No, there has never been a time.
Q When you have seen them together, what
has been the relationship between Mr. and
Mrs. Coughenour and the children?
A It's been a good relationship.
Q Based on your years of experience and
training and your knowledge of the
Coughenours now, could you, with any
probability, predict the type of home that the
Coughenours would provide for the Coughenour
children?
A Yes. | would have no reservation in that
regard at all.
James Kennedy (T 75, E 44)
Q What have you cbserved to be the relation-
ship between the Coughenour children and
the Coughenours?
A_ | found it to be-~its a very normal relation-
ship of father and mother and kids, very
A30
loving, very together. Seems to be a lot of
harmony. | saw no indication of any bother.
Pauline Almond (T 77-80, E 45-48)
Q Did there come a time when you moved into
the Coughenour house?
A Yes, there did.
Q Would you briefly explain why?
A Well, my husband and | had a separation.
We were having a few problems. My
husband is alcoholic and | just moved out
while we got things straightened out, and |
moved in with the Coughenours.
Q How long were you with them?
A | think it was approximately three months.
Q Would you please explain The relationship
that existed between the Coughenours and the
Coughenour children?
A Well, a very nice close family. Everybody
seemed to be happy and congenial.
Q Are you familiar with the standards set by
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Were the Coughenours, to the best of your
knowledge living the standards of the church?
A Yes, they are.
Q What was the general atmosphere that existed
in the Coughenour home?
A it's one of, | guess, a lot of people with love
to have. | think it is beautiful. Love, and
just like I'd love for mine to be.
XQ What about meeting the needs of his family?
Is Mr. Coughenour able to do that adequately?
A | think so, yes, Sir.
he See aceite
PO RL a a te a
A31
Donna Cramer (T 82-84, E 50-52)
Q Do you know the Coughenours?
A Yes, | do.
Where is your home with respect to theirs?
Across the street. Right across the street.
With what frequency do you visit the home?
Oh, how often? Well, | see him just about
every day.
Q Have you had opportunity to see and observe
the Coughenour children, too, on their visits
to the Coughenour home?
A Yes.
Q What did you observe?
A They are enjoying visiting with their father
and having a good time, having a father children
relationship.
Q Do you know of any troubles at all in the
Coughenour home?
A No.
Q From your knowledge and observations, are
there any standards in the Coughenour home
that would be offensive to you?
A No.
XQ Did you say you have seen Mr. Coughenour
with his children?
A Oh, yes.
Q Have you heard them in discussion?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever hear him making any derogatory
remarks about the children's mother or her
husband to the children?
No. No.
Has he made any remarks to you?
No.
POPPrPDO
>OoO>DdD
A32
J. Lorraine Coughenour, Petitioner's wife
(T 102-104, 117; E 67-69, 76)
Q Mrs. Coughenour, what is your education
history?
A | graduated from Heidelburg American High
School in Germany, spent one year at the
Sacred Heart University in Japan, and one
querter at Brigham Young University in Utah.
Q Who has been the primary support of your
child since she was born?
A Until my present marriage, | was the primary
support.
Q Are you involved in any school activities?
A | have joined the PTA this year, and | was
the room mother for the class this year.
Q Are you affiliated with any church?
A Yes. | am a member of the Church of Jesus
Christ of the Latter Day Saints.
Q Are you involved in any church activities?
A | teach the five year olds in Sunday School.
| teach the homemaking education class once a
month in relief society, and | am a visiting
teacher to four family members.
Q Mrs, Coughenour, are you living the stand-
ards set by the church?
A To the best of my knowledge.
Q Mrs. Coughenour, before your marriage to
your husband, did you have sexual
relations with him?
A No, | did not.
Q Are you ready, willing and able to provide
the necessary care and training for the
Coughenour children?
I'm certainly willing to try.
What makes you think you can or cannot do
it?
O >
A33
A Well, we have had them in our home now
for the past two and a half years and we have
developed, |'d say, a warm relationship on
the weekends we have spent together.
XQ Does Mr. Coughenour make derogatory
remarks to the children about their mother
and the stepfather in your presence?
A No.
David Campbell (T 86, E 54)
Q What has been the relationship between the
Coughenour children and the Coughenours?
A | would characterize it as that of children
with parents. There is no straining no
difficulty that | have observed.
Edmond Van Leuven (T 88,89; E 56,57)
IE a et nnn
How long have you known Lorraine Coughenour?
Approximately six years.
You visited her home frequently?
Yes. At least once a month.
Do you know if Lorraine is keeping the
church standerds or not?
To my knowledge she is.
Have you ever had the opportunity to
observe Mr. and Mrs. Coughenour with
the Coughenour children?
A Yes, | have.
Q What is the relationship that you have seen
between them?
A Very harmonious. There seems to be a great
deal of love and affection, mutual respect.
Q Have you ever seen any friction, confrontat-
ions, between any of them?
A Never.
OPFPOYPD
O >
A34
Wain Allen M.D. (T 99, E 64)
Q Have you had opportunity to observe the
Coughenours and Coughenour chi Idren together?
A | have.
Q And what kind of a relationship did you observe?
O>O >
QO >
A warm loving relationship.
How do the children get along together?
Well.
What was the relationship between the children
and Mrs. Coughenour?
Open and werm.
Do you know of anything either relating to
the Coughenour children or to Clyde and
Lorraine Coughenour that would cause problems
in an intimate relationship?
A
No.
Delbert Phillips (T 92,93; E 60,61)
Q
>
OPO
Have you had opportunity to observe the
Coughenours and the Coughenour children
together?
On several occasions. ... We spent oh three
or four days together at Rehobeth Beach in
the summer of 1976 ... .
Have you ever been in the Coughenour home?
Yes.
What did you find the relationship to be
between mrs. and mr. Coughenour?
Very good. There were no problems just
from what | could see.
What was the relationship between the
Coughenours and the Coughenour children?
They seemed to be one big happy family.
No frictions that could be detected.
2 Ey 7
A35
William Wolfe , Respondents witness (T 198-
201, © 120-123)
XQ Have you had an opportunity to have seen
and observed the Coughenour children with
Mr. Coughenour?
A Yes.
Q What did you observe?
A That he performed all his fatherly duties and
got them to church on time and generally was
@ good father.
Q What kind of relationship did there exist
between Mr. Coughenour and his children?
A Love and affection.
Q Did the children show any fear for Mr. Cough-
enour?
A Not that | could observe.
Mr. Wolfe signed a statement that he knows
both parties and it would be in the best interest
of the children to have them in the home of Mr.
Clyde Coughenour (T 200,201; E 122, 123)
THE WITNESS: "Statement of Mr. William
Wolfe, ... | have known Wanda Mills, formerly
Wanda Coughenour, for several years and have
had numerous occasions to be in her home
primerily as a family home teacher. | have
also known Mr. Clyde Coughenour for several
years and have had occasions to see him with
the four Coughenour children. From the knowledge
| have it would be in the best interests of the
children to have them in the home and custody
of Mr. Clyde Coughen our.
| have read and understand the above
statement and to the best of my belief, itis true
and accurate."
And it is signed by me on June 20, 1978.
Q Mr. Wolfe, is this statement accurate?
A36
A Yes.
Q Do you still feel the same now as you did
last week when you signed that statement?
A Yes.
RESPONDENT'S TROUBLED HOME
Both Petitioner's and Respondent's
witnesses testified of her troubled home.
Edna Durant (T 61-69, E 33-40)
Q Do you know Wanda Mills?
A Yes
Q Have you had opportunity to be in the Mills
home?
A Yes
Q_ In what capacity have you been there?
A As avisiting teacher in the relief society
organization and as a relief society president.
Q Were there any physical needs of the
children?
A Yes
Q What type of needs did the children have?
A Generally speaking, there was need for
food. When | was there.
A | made suggestions to her that | thought
might help economically for the money to go
further ... and that | thought would be
nutritious meals
Q In general, then, since you do not want to
go into specifics, what did you find as to the
overall marital stability in the home?
A It was unstable.
Q Are you aware of any fighting in the home?
A Yes
Q Are you aware of periods of separation?
a wore
A37
A Yes
Q Did she say what they were fighting about ?
A Many things.
XQ Okay. Other than that, are you testifying
then that you know of another separation that
they had, based on what she told you?
A Brief ones, yes.
Q Such as whet.
A He went away for periods of time, then would
come back and then would leave again and come
back.
Bishop Lowman (T 39, 40, 45, 47, 48: E 19,
20, 23, 24, 25)
Q As bishop, would you teil us briefly what
ere your responsibilities to the members of
your unit?
A | am responsible for both their spiritual
and physical, their termporal needs.
Q Are Mrs. Mills and the Coughenour
children members of your unit?
A yes they are.
Q Bishop, have you on several occasions had
conferences with Mrs. Mills?
A Yes, | have.
Q As aresult of these conferences were you
made aware of any problems in the home other
than the physical needs?
A Yes
Q Were the financial needs the result of lack
of money or the lack of management of money?
A That's a bit hard for me to determine, but
| think the answer is probably both.
Q Have there been periods of separation?
A Yes
Q Are there contentions in the home?
A ...Yes, there have been some contentions.
A38
William Wolfe, Respondent's withess
(T 197-198, E 119-120)
XQ Mr. Wolfe, you have been in the Mills home
quite often.
A Yes
Q Are you aware of any fighting in the Mills
home?
A | haven't been the home teacher for nine
months, and | am not sure of the situation
today.
Q But in the past there was fighting?
A Yes
Q Are you aware of any periods of separation
between Mr. and Mrs Mills?
A Yes
Q Are you aware of mismanagement of resour-
ces in the Mills home?
A Yes
RESPONDENT'S WITNESSES WERE IGNORANT
OF THE FACTS
Respondent's witnesses, with one exception,
William Wolfe, were ignorant of the conditions
in her home.
John Cook(T 166,167; E 101, 102)
Q You say you have only been in the home twice?
A Yes. | was trying to think today whether it was
three times, but | remember at least twice. That
is inside the house, that is.
Q And how many years is that?
A_ | guess since about November of '75. |
have been in the yard, in the area a lot where
the kids play.
Q Have you ever been in the home when Mr.
Mills was there?
A Well, on the carport is all.
Pe ee a ee, a eee ee
A39
Q Then you really know nothing at all about the
internal relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Mils?
A No
Carol Wood (T 193-195, E 175-117)
alta arch
Q Have you had a chance to observe her and
the children in the home?
A We would go and visit during the day and the
children would be at school. | did get to see her
with her little boy, but not with the older children.
Q Mrs. Wood, how many times did you say yoy
were in the Mills home?
A Oh, let me see. | would say at least 10.
Q And was Mr. Mills there at any time you
were there?
A No. Our visits were always made in the
daytime. To my knowledge, he was not there.
Q Do you know anything about the interactions
between Mr. and Mrs. Mills?
A No
Four brothers and sisters were called, Charles
and Katherine Knight, Don and Sylvia Wilson,
whose testimony was essentially the same
exemplified by that of Sylvia Wilson (T 210,
211; E 130, 131)
Q How many times have you been in the Mills
home in the last two years?
A \'d say roughly maybe 20, 30 times. We go
over there quite a bit.
Q How many times was Mr. Mills there?
A Well, out of about 30 times, | would say
about 28 times.
Q Are you aware of any fighting, tensions in
the Mills home?
A No, not that | know of. They seem like a
happy family.
A40
Q Are you aware of any periods of separation
between the Mill ses?
A No. | think he was gone one night, but he
had to work night work or work over on his job.
Q Did! hear you say, was there plenty of food
and clothing for the kids ...?
A Oh, yes.
RESPONDENT'S PROBLEMS OUT OF COURT
Respondent blamed her problems on Petitioner
in court, but was different out of court, with
examples:
(1) Respondent, Wanda Millis, Withess
(T 259, E 152)
X Q Mrs. Mills, on one occasion did he not leave
because you refused to sign over the vehicle
to him?
A No
(T 231, 232; E 133, 134)
Q Have you had a difficult time financially?
A Yes
Q Have you and your husband worked out this--
A No. That is still a problem. This is one of
the main things that has caused us to separate.
Redirect Examination by Mr. Brooke of his
own witness, Mr. Wolfe (T 203, E 125),
A | think he asked me if | had knowledge of
fighting in the home. | said yes.
Q_ How did you acquire that knowledge?
A Through Mrs. Mills.
Q What did she tell you?
A She told me that she--that her husband had
been there and they had separated that he had
tried to take the car and trade it in for a truck
and so on and so forth.
pw
A41
(2) Petitioner, Clyde Coughenour ,as witness
(T 331, E 181)
| have never said anything deragatory about
either one of them. | have never mentioned Mr.
Mills drinking. | didn't even know he drank. |
Have never mentioned that he smoked, | didn't
even know he smoked, and | don't care.
(T 334, E 184)
| would reiterate that | have made absolutely
no statements or accusations that wouid cause
any contentions between Mr. and Mrs. Mills.
| wish them the best. | wish the best on
everybody. | have no desire to see any home
busted after having gone through it myself.
Cross Examination by Mr. Brooke of
witness Edna Durant (T 68, E 39),
XQ But you are saying she told you that she
and her husband were fighting; is that what
you are saying, that she told you that she
and her husband were fighting ?
THE COURT: For the record, she shook her
head "yes"
Q Did she say what they were fighting about?
A Many things.
Q Were they arguing because her husband was
upset at statements that the children would
bring back from visiting their father? Was that
a matter of contention, staternents about him
that their father toid them?
A No. | don't recall ever mentioning that.
(3) On the witness stand the extensive records
she had to keep were a source of her marital
problems, Wanda Mills, (T 232, E 134),
A My husband, | am afraid of him, and my
second husband knew this, and | was all! the
A42
the time working with records keeping records
of this and records of that because he was al|
the time wanting proof ... and my second hus-
band would get mad because | was all the time
fooling with records.
When information was requested on discovery,
she did not even have an income tax return.
"Motion for Discovery and Production of Documents'
filed February 28, 1978 (R 218, E 243),
3. An accounting of all monies she has ex-
pended on behalf of Clyde Jr., Lynda, Susie,
and James Coughenour since January 1, 1973
including receipts therefor.
4. A copy of her state and federal income
tax returns for 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977 and
any gift tax forms filed by her.
Answer to Motion for Discovery ..., filed
Merch 13, 1978 (R 221, E 244),
3. That due to the Defendant's financial
position, she would be unable to afford the
accounting, investigation and attorneys fees
which would be involved, and the Petitioner
should be required to advance approxi matel y
$2,00 for this purpose as a condition requiring
her to proceed.
(4) Her sex problems in court were over the
education of the children in school,
Wanda Millis (T 231, E 133),
A On the sex, about what should be discussed.
My second husband is more liberal. The children
had a problem, a class on sex education, and
he'd gone down to Annapolis to try to sign the
papers trying to keep this from getting into
school. My husband feit this was good for the
children. He claims that parents should
a
A43
teach, they should have knowledge.
Out of court it was adultry (T 305-307;
E 170-172; E 198-201; Petitioner, Ap -
pellant's, Exhibit No. 8)
RESPONDENT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
While it would be difficult to count all the
instances Respondent lied to the court, about
@ dozen examples were set forth in the brief to
the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland,
September Term, 1978, No. 854,pp. 10-13, a
few examples are:
(1) Interrogatory, filed November 18, 1977,
to Respondent (R 189, E 234),
8. List all court actions initiated by you or
against you and all charges made by you or
against you with any court or police or other
official since January 1, 1973, except those in
DR 73-362, including domestic, law, criminal,
equity and traffic actions, including place and
court or police, etc., filed with, date, docket
number or other designation, and disposition of
action.
Answer to the Interrogatory, filed Januery
20, 1978 (R 206, E 237),
*. | filed aj assault charge in 1975 while
working at the Godderd Space Agency, but | never
received a follow-up notice from the authorities
as to the disposition.
Respondent's testimony on the witness stand
(T 303-306, E 168-171),
Q Mrs. Mills, in your direct you made a list
of reasons that you and your husband were having
problems, and you stated that that was all. Are
you sure that there has never been any misloy-
alty between you and your husband?
A What do you mean by misloyalty?
A44
Q Has either one of you ever gone out with
another companion, been guilty of adultery?
A No.
Q Did you file an assault charge against
your husband then?
A Yes, when | thought he was going to --
Q You have omitted this from your inter-
rogatories. Was that deliberate or was
that an accident?
A No, that was an accident.
Q Is that the only charge you have ever
filed against your husband?
A Yes.
Q Mrs. Mills, | have here a true test
copy of a subpoena and a bill of complaint
filed in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court.
This subpoena is made out to a Darvin Ee.
Mills, 6506 Cahill Drive, Laurel, Maryland.
It was issued June the 30th 1977, it was
returned to the Court non est July the 7th,
1977.
Mrs. Mills, would you please read the
counts in this bill of complaint?
** *
A That the parties were married May 18,
1976 *** that although your complaintant
has always been a good, chaste and affec-
tionate wife towards the defendant hereinsaid
the defendant did nevertheless commit the
offense of adultery"
** *
Q Mrs. Mills, were you telling the truth
when you filed this bill of complaint or
when you answered interrogatories you
submitted to the Court?
A Well, according to that | wasn't telling
A45
the truth, according to this.
According to this, this should have been in
there, | guess, for from what | understand.
The Equity Subpoena from Anne Arundel
County was entered as Petitioner's Exhibit
No. 8, E 198-201.
(2) Questions and answers to Respondent
(R 252, E 148)
Q What were -- what were your daughter
Lynda's grades?
A Hers were As and Bs and C. She got a
C in French. But she has missed some
time. She -- they just got those today.
A Mrs. Mills, | have here a report card
that is out of date and it does not have
the final grades, but as of the previous
report period this shows Lynda with three
Ds and one incomplete.
A Yes, because she was trying to -- she
was going through a training program to go
to voc-tech. She was doing a lot of study-
ing to go to this college and she would
have been accepted with 22 other girls
and this was taking a lot of her time and
she did pass this. ***
(3) On interrogatories she was asked to
list all automobile accidents she was involved
in (filed November 11, 1977, R 188-191 E
233-235, No. 7). She listed one (filed
January 20, 1978, R 205-207, E 237-239,
Nos. 5 and 7). It was shown that she was
involved in at least 6 (T 262-269, E28,
E 153-160, Petitioners, Appellant's,Ex-
hibits Nos. 6 and 7, E 193-197).
A46
(4) Her financial statement filed was
completely erroneous (E 227, R 247, Ap-
pellee's Exhibit No. 8) from E 162-164,
T 290-292 as example:
Q Mrs. Mills, in your financial statement,
you said that you are spending $50 every
month on the children, and you have testi-
fied that the children are in excellent health
and | am very confused about this $50 a
month when you indicated that it is closer
to $50 a year.
A Well, like when Susie got hurt, you know,
with the head, she had to have a tetanus
shot, and Jimmy got hit with the car, and
| took him to the emergency room.
Q Mrs. Mills, when you take your children
to the emergency room, how do you pay for
it?
A They send me a bill later, and | pay it,
because you refuse to let the insurance
with the Blue Cross take care of it.
Q Then you are not receiving any assistance
at all from Blue Cross-Blue Shield?
A No. When Lynda went to get warts
taken off her hand, | do think finally your
insurance did cover that.
Q In the last year how many times have
you taken the children to the emergency
ward?
A Maybe four, five times.
Q Andhow much did you pay for all these
visits? Did you receive any assistance
at all?
A | wound up paying $68 and $35. | got
the receipts. Because they called me later
and said you wouldn't pay them, so! had
A47
to pay them.
Q Mrs. Mills, | have here receipts for
Blue Cross and Blue Shield. This Blue
Shield --
A That was for surgery. Some of that was
surgery.
Q It says that the charge was $10, and the
plan paid $10.
A Okay.
Q | have here charges of $7 and $21, they
paid $7 and $20.
A Okay. Now --
Q And | have one here where the charge
was $21 and the plan paid $20.
A That's right, because they had to x-ray
her hand before they cut the warts off.
Q Then | also have a receipt from January
31, which coincides with one of Susie's
here where Blue Cross paid $43.50, and also
have one here from Blue Cross on March
the 21st where they paid $57.51.
Now, Mrs. Mills, when you take children
to the emergency room practically all the
charges are compensated by Blue Cross
and Blue Shield are they not?
A No, not everything, because | have got
bills that | paid, too.
(5) Respondent claims Petitioner left her
destitute, removed the food and provided
no support (Respondent, Appellee, Brief
to Court of Special Appeals of Maryland,
September Term, 1978, No. 854, page 2)
when it was s!.own she took over $5,000
from joint accounts before he left, spent
over $15,000 the first year of separation
and that he made continuous payments
A48
(T 127,128,145; E 80,81,97)
(6) To counter the testimony of her being
well dressed while the children were in rags
she explained that the clothes she had
weren't really hers, but were from a job
she had. There was no such job listed on
her answer tc interrogatories.
Petitioner, Clyde Coughenour, witness
(E 92 T 143)
At this time the children's clothes were
becoming a little tattered. They were stil!
fairly well dressed, but they were becoming
tattered, and to this day | have never seen
Mrs. Mills in anything but first class
clothing.
There have been many occasions
when the children have visited that you
could punch a hole through the knees in
their church clothes. You could take the
four fingers together and put them through
holes in their shoes.
Petitioner as witness (T 332, E 182)
She (Respondent) also showed me a
stack of photographs where she was hoping
to become a model and she said that some
of the clothes were bought with this, but
she had an expensive wardrobe she had
never had before, to my knowledge.
Petitioner's wife, Lorraine Coughenour
(E 75, ¥ 226)
A Because Jimmy was wearing sneakers
with holes in them to church. He was
wearing a suit that did not fit him any longer.
Respondent, Wanda Mills, witness
(T227, E 288)
Q Now explain the circumstancesunder which
you had the clothes?
A49
A Well, | was a community shopper.
Q Proceed on what he did.
A When he saw the clothes, he just miscon--
he just whatever the word. Turned it all around
and made out that | was buying these clothes
with his support money, but that isn't the
procedure at all.
Interrogatories, filed November 18, 1977,
(R 189, E 234)
4. List all employment you have held since
January 1, 1973, ...
Answer to Interrogatories, filed January 20,
1978 (R 206, T 238),
4. Worked as cook in Connell's Reastaurant
for approximately 3 months in 1974- ...; worked
as Security Guard at Dennis Detective Agency
from June 1975 to September 1975 ...; for
approximately 3 months toward the end of 1975 |
worked as Security Guard at Goddard Space
Center... «
As examples of her logic:
(a) She could not have committed adultery
with the man she was associated with over an
extensive period of the summer of 1977 because
the day she was supposed to be committing
adultery with him she was having a breakfast
affair at church with the children. (T 234, E 136)
(b) Her husband could not have committed
adultery during the four months he was gone as
she charged, because when he went to the
Department of Motor Vehicles in Glen Burnie
to show them his unemployment card, he did
not have a woman with him. (T 312,313; E 173,
174)
ASO
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT WAS NOT
HONEST WITH THE COURTS
Respondent's attorney flooded the trial with
his lies and accusations with no evidence what-
soever to support them. A few examples are:
(1) Prince George's County Circuit Court,
June 23, 1978, DR 73-362, opening remarks,
MR. BROOKE: This has been a strain. When
my client came in, her little girl was just clinging
to her in fear because of statements that Mr.
Coughenour had made to his daughter, and he
is interfering with these children. He's making
statements that have these children very upset--
(T 19)
(2) Closing remarks, June 30, 1978,
MR. BROOKE: ... | think the problem now
is one that's been all along, simply can't cope
with him and the fact that he is able to go out
and get people to make statements. A lot of
people are just repeating what he told them.
That is not really evidence in my opinion.
(T 366)
(3) With pleadings for a trial, Respondent
filed contempt of court charges for $1,650
arrearage (R 124, 125; E 215, 216)
Petitioner, Clyde > tecduncineal witness
(T 128-130, E 81-83) .
In 1974 | was making regular child support
and alimony payments. We had a hearing
coming up for the final divorce and | was
sending my personal checks directly to her.
As the trial date approached , she informed me
that she was not receiving her checks.
Mr. Coughenour: There was no good reason
for her to refuse to expend these monies on the
A51
children as it was intended and the court
instructed her it should be.
THE COURT: Were the five checks
eventually cashed?
MR. COUGHENOUR: Not all of them, sir.
She came into court. She stated to the Court
that | was $1,650 behind in the one-year interim
between the a mensa and a vinculo trials. |
produced receipts, and | believe they are in the
file, to show that | could account for everything
but $365.
She then accepted the $365 check. After she
had received the check she started cashing these
checks. She did cash two of them.
Petitioners receipts for all but $365 are found
at R 132 +, E 217-219.
After the $365 was accepted as payment in
full she cashed two of the checks at a local
grocery store "Angels". Mrs. Chris Dembinsky ,
the cashier, was told by Respondent that she
had been holding onto the checks, then over
60 days old, for a long time and she was
requested to get the managers approval.
Respondent returned to Mrs Dembinsky and
reported the checks had been approved, they
had not. :
"The checks were cashed by Chris who was
told by Wanda that she had been holding onto
the checks for a long time for reasons and
Chris sent wanda to the back of the store for
Thomas' approval. Wanda returned to Chris
and told her that Thomas had approved them.
The checks were stale, being well over two
months old. They were not approved."
(E 202, 203, Petitioner, Appellant's Exhibit
/
A52
No. 9)
Mr. Brooke in his brief to the Court of
Special Appeals of Maryland, September Term
1978, No. 854, page 9 stated:
"The employee, Chris Dembinsky was called
to identify his signature on the statement which
in turn, was used as evidence of a statement
made by the appellee (petitioner's exhibit 9,
E 178). On cross-examination the witness
acknowledged that he did not make the statement"
This is completely contrary to the finding of
the court.
THE COURT: "All she said, her only
testimony was she doesn't have any
recollection of what happened. All she said
was she remembers signing the piece of
paper, and before she signed it, she read it,
and the things that she knew about in this
| etter were probably true when she signed it."
(T 328, E 297, Petitioner, Appellant's, Reply
Brief, page 1, to the Court of Special Appeals
of Maryland, September Term 1978, No. 854)
(4) In his Brief to the Court of Special
Appeals, page 11 of Appeliee's Brief,
"in reviewing the appellant's brief,
appellee submits that the argument about
appeilant's home being filled with love, as
observed by various witnesses who were
invited in on occasion where they would see
what he wanted them to see, cannot possibly
outweigh the history of the case as developed
through the evidence."
(5) The following are excerpts from
Petitioner's testimony and Respondent's
witness, William Wolfe.
A53
Clyde Coughenour, witness, (T 142, 143;
E 94, 95)
"Another thing that created problems in
the Mills home was the frequent absence of
Mr. Mills. During the summer of 1977, Mrs.
Mills had taken up companionship with a
man. | understand his name was Clyde, but
1'm not sure. He was an ex-military man. He
had been in the Army, the Navy and the Air
Force ... | was there and seen this man at the
house. He accompanied her to Rehobeth Beach
with the children. They were taking his
apartment.
THE COURT: How do you know this?
Mr. COUGHENOUR: | was informed this
by the children. One weekend when | took the
children, my youngest daughter, Susie, did
not accompany us because he was going to take
her horseback riding, and after that | believe --
| believe it was the July 4 weekend, because
they also went to the fireworks.
William Wolfe, Respondent's witness
(T 197, E 119)
XQ In the summer of 1977, were you in the
Mills home ?
A Yes
Q You were shown pictures taken at Rehobeth
Beach, were you not?
A Yes
Q The pictures were of Mrs. Mills, the Cough-
enour children and another man, were they not?
A Yes
Q Who was that other man?
A He was identified to me as someone in the
Navy; | never heard a name.
A54
In oral argument to the Court of Special
Appeals of Maryland, Mr. Brooke stated that
his witnesses testimony corroborating
Petitioner's of Respondent's relationship
with another man during her present marriage
in the summer of 1977, was a case of
mistaken identity and that the statement by
the three children, that they wanted to live
with Petitioner (R 310, E 258, ASS ) was
procured by Petitioner's promise of a
Slurppee.
THE COURT FOUND RESPONDENT ABLE TO
WORK
Excerpt from the court's oral opinion, Thursday,
August 1, 1974, Petitioner, Appellant's, Exhibit
No. 5 (T 137, 138; E 89, 90, 190, 191)
"The Court is not satisfied that this :ady can't
go to work. | think there are some things she can
do. | don't think she has worked that hard at it."
THE CHILDREN ARE BEING SUBJECTED TO
RELIGIOUS STRAINS
Respondent, Wanda Mills, witness (T 230,
2o%: © 132, 123)
A Yes, In the beginning we had a religious
problem and we went to conferences with the
bishop, but we resolved that.
Q Okay. So that was no longer a problem?
A No, sir.
Q And that is something brought about by the
fact of different religions?
A Yes.
Respondent about her present husband
(T 233,. & 135)
A55
A Well, Darvin got fed up with the children
coming in and harassing him about smoking.
They'd go into lung problems, these filters in
your lungs, you can't breathe good.
Bishop Lowman (T 40, 48, 49; E 20, 25,
26)
Q Are the Coughenour children trying to live
the standards of the church?
A Yes
Q In your years of experience, have you
found it to be a problem for children trying to
live the standards of the church or any church,
any high moral standards, have you found there
to be a problem in children trying to live
conforming to these standards where others
are not keeping the standards?
A Yes, it is difficult for a child to live any
standard that they like to live in which there
is a disagreement in the home.
Q Would the Coughenour children be an
exception to this?
A Maybe individually; not collectively.
Bishop Condie (T 31-34, E 11-14)
Q Bishop, what is the stand taken by the church
on fornication?
A Fornication is grounds for excommunication
and sometimes results in same.
Q_ If fornication is grounds for excommunication,
then adultery would be the same, being between
two married people; is that correct, sir?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q What about someone who chronically lies?
A Well, that likewise is contrary to the
standards of the church.
Q Cheating?
A The same.
A56
Q is it possible for an unwed woman in the
church to get pregnant and stil! be living the
standards of the church?
A No, that is not possible.
Q Bishop, in your many years of experience in
the church, have you ever noticed any difference
between the homes of where there were all .
members of the home were members of the
church, and those where there were not persons
members of the church?
A Yes, there is a difference. | think it is
quite obvious that when both parents are
members of the church, it is much easier to
teach the children in accordance with the
standards of the church. ... One parent
has one standard and the other parent another
and that presents some conflict with the
children
CERTIFIED STATEMENT OF THE CHILDREN
From notarized statement by the Coughenour
children, James age 10, Susie age 12, Lynda
age 14 (filed July 25, 1978; R 310; E 258):
1. That we informed Judge Mason in
private that we desired to live with our father,
Clyde | .Coughenour, or that we expected him
to be granted custody of us.
2. That in view of our request not having
been honored or he not having been granted
custody, we want it to be known publically that
we want to live with our father.
3.That we would prefer to all live together
with our father.
4. That if we cannot all live with our
father, then we want to live separately with him.
AS7
5S. That we feel we have:rights, if nothing
more than human rights, and that we are old
enough and intelligent enough to know and '
understand what we want to do and what is.
best for us.
6. That of our own free will and choice
we have requested our father to use every legal”
means. to enable us to live with him. |
7. That nothing here means we do not love
our mother, as we do.
8. That we are willing to. talk to the Judge _
again if our position is not understood.
RESPONDENT 'S HOME IMPROVEMENTS FOR
TRIAL
The improvements in the Mills home being
since the custody petition was filed in November
of 1977, was known to the court,
Opening remarks by Petitioner (T 10,11)
"In the last three months with this case pending
against them, respondent has been able to work
fairly closely with Mr. Mills, and we believe
they have been able to paint a picture that is not
as bad as it really is. We believe it is really
house dressing and that there is no chance or |
very little chance of them having a very happy,
stable home of the type the children deserve."
After the quoted statement of the Court of
Special Appeals fo Bishop Lowmans testimony
at AQ:
THE COURT: How long a period of time has
it been since you have seen this improvement?
THE WITNESS: | would say within the last
six months.
A5S8
PETITIONER WAS IN CONTEMPT WHEN HE
COULDN'T KEEP UP HIGH PAUMENTS AND
HAD TO TAKE A SECOND JOB
WiTNESS COUGHENOUR: It has been stated
that | stopped payments. There has never been a
two-week period since my separation that | did
not put my child support, alimony payment. |
did cut it back fromm $185 a week to $150 when |
ran out of money. This is what the contempt of
court case was about. | had to take an extra job
to finish paying that off.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.