256 A.2d 911 | D.C. | 1969
This is an appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction, based in part on
The granting or denial of a preliminary injunction is discretionary with the trial ■court. Review on appeal is limited to a determination of “whether there has been ‘abuse of trial court discretion,’ ‘clear error,’ ‘violation of the rules of equity,’ or ■‘improvident granting.’ ” Maas v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 251, 371 F.2d 348 (1966).
The denial of the requested preliminary injunction which would allow the husband to remain at the family domicile is tantamount to a preliminary determination granting the wife temporary custody of the children pending the outcome of the litigation. The court in so awarding may make reasonable orders under the circumstances allowing the husband visitation rights to see his children. D.C.Code 1967, §§ 11-1141 and 1161. Brewer v. Simmons, D.C.App., 205 A.2d 60, 63 (1964); Den v. Den, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 152, 154, 375 F.2d 328, 330 (1967). The order allowing exercise of these rights at the family domicile is not unusual or unreasonable and is a very common practice.
Although there is testimony in the record given by the wife reflecting that there were some violent encounters between the parties, we cannot say that this required a conclusion contrary to that reached by the trial court. That there was animosity cannot be denied, but the best interests of the children take precedence.
Appellant also contends, as she did in the motion for modification,
The issuance of this injunction was primarily for the benefit of the children. The court found that the alleged paramour
* * * conducted himself in such a fashion that it was an adverse reflection on the proper parent-child relationship between the defendant and his children, [and] constituted irreparable damage to the defendant and the parties’ minor children. * * *
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
The appellee did not. cross-appeal and this issue is presently not before the court.
.We cannot agree with appellant that her property rights are paramount to visitation rights of the husband and the interests of the children in seeing their father.
. If the appellant had additional evidence bearing on this point, it could have been presented to the trial court in the request for modification of the preliminary injunction order. '
. Id.