Curry

The sole issue on this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to modify a child custody order.

The controlling rule in such a. situation is stated in Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719, 730 [ 68 P.2d 719 ] as follows: “An application for a modification of an award of custody is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court, and its discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless the record presents a clear case of an abuse of that discretion.” (In accord: Munson v. Munson, 27 Cal.2d 659, 666 [ 166 P.2d 268 ].)

The facts herein will be stated in accord with the time-honored rule that the trial court resolved every factual conflict in favor of the prevailing party, and accepted that evidence, including those inferences reasonably dedueible therefrom, which supports its order. (Primm v. Primm, 46 Cal.2d 690, 693 [ 299 P.2d 231 ]; Thomas v. Hunt Mfg. Corp., 42 Cal.2d 734, 736 [ 269 P.2d 12 ].)

The plaintiff, in June 1956, obtained a default interlocutory decree of divorce from the defendant, who then was in the armed services of the United States, after th,e latter had filed a written appearance in the action; was awarded custody of -…