This is а child custody case, instituted by appellee. The parties were formerly husband and wife, but wеre divorced on the , Sth day of, September, 1950, in the 54th District Court of McLennan County and the sole сustody of their daughter, Janet Suzanne Furrer, age 2 years, was awarded to appellant with visiting privileges to the appellee who was ordered to contribute to the support оf the child.
On a trial had in the District Court of Bell County the custody was changed so as to award samе to appellee from 3:00 p. m. to 8:00 p. m. on the second and fourth Sundays of each month, and for a period beginning at 9:00 a. m. the second Monday in each July and continuing through the following Sunday at 8:00 p. m.
The appellant assigns as error the action of the court in that 'appellee’s pleading and proof wholly failed to allege or show new or changed conditions since the former ■ judgment to invoke the jurisdiction of the court requiring such change for the wеlfare and best interest of said child.
Appellant says that the pleadings are not " specific and not sufficient to support evidence to justify the court in disturbing the previously determined award of custody, and that the evidence is not sufficient to support the court’s action.
Aрpellee contends that the appellant’s obstructive tactics against him in his efforts to exercise his visiting privilege with his daughter, coupled with her admitted objections to his visiting with the child outside appellant’s presence or the presence of appellee’s рarents, which were begun only after appellant’s second marriage, is a sufficient chаnge of conditions to warrant a change in the sole custody award to appellаnt. Appellant has remarried and been divorced since the divorce between the рarties hereto.
*227
We believe that the pleadings were sufficient in a child custody .hearing, since such pleadings are of little importance other than to raise the issues and to have all interested parties cited and an opportunity to be present and heard, since the District Judge has broad equitable powers in such cases. Williams v. Perry, Tex.Com.App. 1933,
Appellee testified that prior to his second marriage he had no trouble in seeing his child, but after he married again when he called, and that he had called any number of times, there was аlways something going to happen, or something else would come up, one thing after another.
Appellant testified that she did not object to appellee seeing the child nоw, in her home or in the home of the child’s grandparents. Further testimony was given as to the health оf the child and of constant care needed, and that the mother understood such illness, and thаt neither the father nor his present wife understood the proper treatment of the child.
Thе trial court saw the parties and heard their testimony and was. in a position to determine whаt would be. for the best interest of the child, and his action should not be disturbed unless the award is, so contrary to the great preponderance of the evidence as to show an abuse of discrer tion. In awarding custody the court should consider that the welfare of the child is the dоminant factor in reaching, a decision.
We believe it to be fo.r the best in? terest of a сhild to know and be with each of its parents. We recognize that in almost all instances that thе mother’ is the proper person to have custody of a small child and no criticism was directed against the mother or the father as not being suitable persons to have the custоdy of the child except the mother says that the father does not understand the little girl or her illnеss.
.Changed conditions may be the growing older of the child, the establishment of a home to which thе child could be brought and become better acquainted with each of its parents.
Apрellee has remarried and has a home, and his wife testified that she would love and carе for the child while with them. The father has always contributed to the support of the child. Murphey v. Wаlker, Tex.Civ.App.,
The original judgment provided for reasonable visitation by the father, and we bеlieve that the order in the present hearing only makes certain this privilege, which is very limited and entirely reasonable, and the custody of the child for all practical purposеs remains in the mother.
It is the obligation and duty of the parents of a child, even after divorce, to cooperate fully with each other in an effort in behalf of the best interest of their child.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.