CUSTODY OF CHILD.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 145, 21 June 1934, Page 9

CUSTODY OF CHILD.

MOTHER MAKES CLAIM

SIGNATURE TO AGREEMENT.

NO MAINTENANCE PAID.

A motion for a writ of habeas corpus, brought by a mother to secure possession of her four-year-old child, was heard before Mr. Justice Fair in the Supreme Court this morning. Mr. J. F. Dickson appeared to support the motion, and Mr. Slipper to oppose it. The applicant was Sarah Octavia Bare, and the respondent Kathleen Holmes, now Mrs. .Shortland, of Dominion Road.

Petitioner stated she was 21 years of age and the mother of the child, now in possession of Mrs. Shortland. Witness knew of an agreement which she had signed giving possession of the child to Mrs. Shortland. In that agreement it was stated that she had no love for the child, and that it would only be a hindrance to her life, but this had not been put in at her suggestion. The Agreement was typed out when she saw it, and after reading it through she signed it, as Mrs. Shortland told her not to take anj' notice of the statement, as "it would be all right." Burning of Rosary. Witness denied there had been trouble over the burning of a /osary and cross. Mrs. Shortland showed her the rosary and asked witness if she wanted it. Witness said she did not, whereupon Mrs. Shortland said it was 110 good to her, and witness burned it. That action had nothing whatever to do with the trouble over the custody of the child. Witness denied that on any of her visits to Mrs. Shortland' the latter had turned her out. About a month ago witness saw the police and the Child Welfare Department. Mrs. Shortland, who was formerly Mrs. Holmes, had always fed and clothed the child well. Mr. Slipper: You read the agreement over in my office before you signed it?— Yes. And I asked you if there was anything in it which was not correct to tell me? —Yes. Well, why didn't you mention it to me? —Mrs. Shortland told me there was nothing in it and it was all right. Affection For Child. The agreement says you had no affection for the child?— That is not true. And that possession of the oliild would only be a hindrance to you in life?— Mrs. Shortland told me what was in it, but said it would be all right. Isn't the true position that you were afraid Mrs. Shortland would put the child back on your hands?— No.

Mrs. Shortland lias looked after tie child well?— Yes.

And you have never contributed anything towards its support?—l have never been able to give any money, but I have bought clothes for the cliild.

Why did you sign the agreement?—l did not want my stepfather to know about the cliild.

Did you sign an agreement to have the child adopted?— Yes.

The witness said she did not want any money from the father of the child.

You have been living all along with your mother and stepfather?— Yes.

You went to Mrs. Shortland six months before birth?— Yes.

And she paid all expenses in connection with the birth of the child?— Yes.

And it was understood she was to have the custody of the child?— Only till I married, her son, when she was to give it up.

Words in Agreement. Re-examined by Mr. Dickson, petitioner said the father of the child was Mrs. Shortland's son, and lie had paid nothing towards either the support 01 the child or petitioner. The step-father was called, and- he said he was willing to take the child. The respondent, Kathleen Shortland, said that the words in the agreement were put in at petitioner's suggestion. Petitioner said she wished to get nd of the child for good. Touching the burnin"- of the rosary, witness said Petitioner found it on the dressing table, blasphemed over it, and then placed it in the fire. She remembered petitioner saying she wished the child was dead. To Mr. Dickson: Shortland had been keeping her for five yeans. Before she married Shortland she had not taken his name, although people had referred to her as Mrs. Shortland, and she had not corrected them.

You divorced your former husband, Mr. Holmes ?—Yes. And you were co-respondent in Shortland's divorce? —Yes. Did you tell the solicitor - when the agreement was drawn up that the mother had 110 love for the child? —Yes, it was what she told me the day before. Has your soil contributed towards the maintenance of the child? —No, for th.o reason I did not want any. Do you suggest that the mother does not love this child ?—She has never shown any signs of it. Do you love it?—l worship the child. Did Not Turn Up. Your son is willing to marry the girl?— Yes, Miss Bare was supposed to marry my son last Saturday, but she did not turn up. Is he still prepared to marry her?— Yes, he would make any sacrifice to give the child a name. He loves the child, and would marry the mother. (Proceeding.)