Frank byers decatur

Reversed. Attorneys and Legislation Companies Henson, Morthland & Henson, Decatur, for appellee. View REYNOLDS, Presiding Justice.
 * 183 **112 Woollen, Byers & Brown, Decatur (Frank H. Byers, Rex L. Brown, and Elmer C. Hawkins, Decatur, of counsel), for appellant.

This is an attractiveness from an get modifying a decree for the custody of the small kid of the functions, Shelley-Lynn Arden. On March four, 1959, in the Circuit Courtroom of Macon County, Illinois, Augusta C. Arden, plaintiff, was granted a divorce from Samuel J. Arden, defendant, on the ground of cruelty. By the phrases of the divorce decree custody of the insignificant kid of the functions was awarded to the mom with correct of selected visitation on the part of the father. There were no other conditions as to custody. The father was ordered to fork out for the assist of the baby. By the results of the court docket in the divorce decree, the plaintiff was located to be a faithful and true wife, and a *184 right particular person to have the treatment, custody and management of the small baby, Shelley-Lynn Arden, who was somewhere around eight yrs of age at the time of the decree. On June 10, 1959, defendant filed his petition to modify the decree, alleging a modify of instances warranted a change of custody from the plaintiff to the defendant and abatement of the guidance payments. To this petition the plaintiff submitted her cross-petition to modify the original decree inquiring that the payments for the help of the child be enhanced, due to the greater profits of the defendant. Hearing was experienced before the Chancellor and it was ordered that the defendant’s petition for modification of the decree be granted, the cross petition of the plaintiff be denied, and the custody of the small kid awarded to the defendant. From that buy the plaintiff appeals to this court. Plaintiff assigns as mistake that the trial courtroom utilised the transcript of the divorce proceedings as a foundation for its ruling on the petitions for modification, failed to take care of the results of simple fact in the divorce decree as res adjudicata, the decision was versus the bodyweight of the proof, and the decision unsuccessful to make the welfare and ideal desire of the little one the paramount consideration in identifying custody. This courtroom is inclined to agree with the competition that the demo court utilized the transcript of the divorce proceedings as a foundation for its ruling on the petitions for **113 modification of the decree and failed to treat the findings in the decree as res adjudicata. The remark of the trial courtroom that by the authority of Handrich v. Handrich, 339 Ill.Application. 151, 89 N.E.2d 191, the court docket is not minimal to the pleading in the proceedings, but that ‘the gate is open’ and that the court may inquire into any subject is not justified by the choice in the Handrich situation. In that scenario, the courtroom stated, 339 Sick.Application. at site one hundred fifty five, 89 N.E.2nd at site 192: ‘While the scope of the current inquiry was not confined by legislation *185 to any unique period of time, nevertheless the court can not sit in evaluation on the previous choice, and the chancellor appropriately declined to do so.’ The trial court docket also claimed:-‘This was a continuing issue and all I have to do is glance back at the file in this scenario. frank byers decatur