This is an appeal from a final order and judgment modifying that part of a decree of divorce regarding the custody and support оf the parties’ minor child.
The transcript reveals that the custody of their minor son, Lowell K. Wood, Jr., has been the subject of repeаted proceedings between the parties since the original decree of divorce was granted to defendant on Januаry 14, 1959. The view we take of the case makes it unnecessary to dwell at length upon the successive modifications of that decrеe. It is sufficient to say that by the original decree the custody of the child was awarded to defendant, and certain rights of temporary custody were given to plaintiff. Subsequently, by either contested proceedings, or by stipulations consenting thereto, the original deсree with respect to custody and child support was modified by orders made on April 14, 1960; November 3, 1961; and January 11, 1963. The order made on thе last mentioned date directed that plaintiff was to have the exclusive and undisturbed custody of the child until the “ * * * middle of the vacation period of 1963 * * * ”; defendant was to have custody from the middle of the 1963 vacation period until the middle of the 1964 vacation period, “ * * аnd each party to have successive rights of custody alternately thereafter.” It was further ordered therein that plaintiff and defеndant were to have temporary custody on alternate weekends, from 9:00 A.M. on Saturday to 6:00 P.M.' on Sunday, “ * * except during summer vacatiоn periods when each party shall have unrestricted and undisturbed custody of said child. * * *»
Matters thus stood until June 7, 1963, when plaintiff filed a motion to modify the decree, in which he alleged that the health, welfare and educational standing of the child had greatly improved during the time the minor was in plaintiff’s custody; that the child desired to remain with plaintiff; that the defendant was emotionally unfit to care for the child; that the environment wherein defendant resided was unsatisfactory and improper for the rearing of a minor child; that the conditions had grown worsе since the previous order of court, and that to require plaintiff to surrender custody to defendant would greatly affect the child by seriously impairing his education, welfare, and mental and physical health. The prayer was that plaintiff be granted sole and permаnent custody.
On June 20, 1963 defendant filed an application for the disqualification of the judge presiding in Division No. 16 of the court, in which division the mоtion was pending, on the grounds of bias and prejudice on the part of the judge, which defendant stated she had first ascertained on the preceding day; and defendant requested the court to call in another judge to sit in the case. The application was рresented and denied on the same day. Thereafter, on July 2, 1963, defendant filed an answer to plaintiff’s motion to modify wherein she alleged that the matters stated in the motion had been fully adjudicated by the order of January 11, 1963, and were res adjudicata. A trial was held on July 5, and on July 12, 1963, the court entered an order giving plaintiff permanent custody of the child, and providing that defendant was to have temporary сustody at certain specified times. Support money was limited to the month during the vacation period when defendant was to have temporary custody. Following an unavailing motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
*239
The first, and in our opinion the decisive, point raised by defendant is that the court erred in failing and refusing to disqualify himself, and in declining to call in another judge, when so requested by defеndant. In support of her argument defendant cites Civil Rule 51.03(b), V.A.M.R. and Hayes v. Hayes,
The transcript does not show that еither party filed an application to disqualify prior to the entry by consent of the order of January 11, 1963. It would make no differencе if it did. A motion to modify a decree of divorce is in the nature of an independent proceeding, and the motion is treated as а petition in an original action. North v. North,
It follows that the court erred in overruling the defendant’s application for his disqualification. Accordingly, the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial before another judge, in accordance with the Civil Rules. The Commissioner so recоmmends.
The foregoing opinion by DOERNER, C., is adopted as the opinion of this court. Accordingly,'judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial before another judge, in accordance with the Civil Rules.