FATHER OR MOTHER?

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 13937, 10 January 1911, Page 9

FATHER OR MOTHER?

V CUSTODY OF_CHILDREN. T- SCPRGiE.COUIIT JUDGMENT. inS* ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) V DUNEDIN'. January v. '~ fteoecision of Mr Justice Williams, . ; Le heard recently in winch Hugh ■.* V BO yed for a writ of haleas restoration of his two '*? M who had been surreptitiously - TZk ** * ife after h0 had ,eft bc^'Si nut" The two children in chnrg-? of 'Sr«otb«. ™ s read i 0 thC lS "P rmo ' firnrf thU morning. - u-ihe «i!.TM* ol his judgment his " Ui T oUr stated that an important - ,«tionnf lawwas involved. It had been Sided on befall of the applicant !, 1» tbo Court «s bound to give " ffoct to tin-' common law rights ot die - father as controlled only by the geni : Ird principle* of equity, and as un- ':■ '£4d fay the statutory rights given V toti»efiK> thcr by section 6'of the In- '!: ) v Act, 1908. It had been urged •"■ that as * ection 6 I ,rovided thut tho re " i'-M to be granted was to be on tho *■ Llication .Of the mother, such ap- '< Sferipn »« nectary to give the \&urt jurisdiction. His Honour held considering the question of ens- '" loot and access the Court must have - «fi»rd firstly, to the welfaro of tho £. J&& secondly, to the conduct of the v parsuts* and, thirdly, to the wishes as * «Il'of the mother as of the father. "- ?« knsidtrint* tno conduct of the VfifiTlE »« htfl °l the fatiipi-should ™* override tne wishes of the mother. .# JK» riabtt ot-the father were no longer tSnwwni, even if there .had Uen ?"_*triß*niai misconduct on the pnit ot ..' the Wer the Court could make an ,-' !£fr- is" her favour. Dealing with the '•\ fcrtts G?''the case his Honour said tne ■ tayi and wife had lived apart since '•' tte teataning of August, 19urf, whim '' tto'fcatband had left the wife, taking ri <' ttflfcfeifdrcn with him. Tlie wife hnd ' l>wioHßlv had tho husband arrested on th* complaint that- there was reason- ' *b& ground* to behove the husbanu m-<-'■}'.tended to, tearo her without adequate -' me'»J» of maintenance. Ibo chaige :-r bid ten disniused. After tbo aej ai- -*\ attott tbo Conduct of the husband liad % "leaked wholly unjustifiable. Mrs J I. mm had written nnd telegraphed ■-.■asking after the children, but he had ?-' asm replied, and he hnd given her as to where tho children '':'• vert. " Another child had been born ■ '■-' slw week? after he had left her, but „,-'jlKrt informed of thc matter by the y'■*■ss, he had never answered and never 'Vwnt her any money to pay tho exsenses of her confinement, or to miun- '. I»ia herself or tho child. Ho had mver ''• 50.c te sec the child nor asked alter * it, nor bad he sought nor visited even . tie other childreu during the mouths i:« ttey Imd been at' Milton with their '•""■ Vandmofcher. V?hen tho wife had ■•'.miiAwli where they were and c-i!led ~:!' : m itbo grandmothor tho liad not been '-# <|lld)«d to see them. Thc gt a nd"«»',nwii*r ; would not let Mrs Thomson f £ intit her house. The mother bad iis.tim taken - the children avay % '»K*p*itioMsly and taken then: to '|-NA|Her, where .she was engaged as J. JwHtSekceper to-a Mr Bobertson, a re.'j.'iM^contractor. When tho wife had Jr first'gone to' Napier she had gone under ; ; "'ih6 name of Mrs Robertson, giving as '.a-reason that she. thought no one 'jfVwould- find. ber. "That," said his V- Honour,' M was most' indiscreet; looking '-/ at tlie situation she waa placed in by -°: h«r husbiysd leaving her unsupported C. and with s young child in her charge,. ij, r thero was nothing unreasonable in her it-tftking-tbe place as housekeeper .for a k.j_ _ia.*i in the position Mr Robertson is be -ia." .- His Honour said he since the separation '•^feßiaritalconduct of ihe husband had ;|...|fctt hh meable, whilst the marital contbe wife had not, and looking 'fi-ft. ,"■ tlie welfare of. tho infants !s;>«:'the conduct »if the parents, allow the wishes , Ijj; Wjvtjie nwther in respect oi tho *.ei»woy of the children to prevail over ihttawof, i.i*-f4lber. •'There remains," honour,-"the most imquestion of religion. The ai»aj|o«t'« a Presbyterian, the mother a they were married at office, the children were |4?#¥ten«d*' in the Roman Catholic t*# > te J J -".' .' The mother says the father |M»WJiO; objection. The father says XM Ooj«t_d„. It is beyond question that |gjw father has the right to havo nis p*W?«n .hrought up in the religion he and that the Act of lS6b' 30i??S '?°* interfere.with this rightWEHt' i a tt9 father fa dead the rule 4 Tlle judgment goes on to samo « ut y would exist if m&* o*r«ere the child of a Jew, a a Mahommedan, or a Buddhist. ||$f|pUofe follow -that the Court would P|P|"? t the mother to have the llglwwy or the child simply because the ,w. the mother differed from father. Simply, however, * n order discharging the rule, K5aS^ 4a ?* < *° complete justice between he fath er as Tvell as the fflßgp &ad rights, and these rights §M&< v P rotoct °d- The father ought reasonable access to his though.ho might not bo alt?" "iitody of them. "1 pro-«£&-iT? ]. ono « r continued, "to defflßKß^-'™ 8 chlWrer > (when capable »tS?P?I* ,a « reh'gieus education) ought !sLak*2 u Kbt up and educated as order that the jSMWjeft remain under the core of the IbST*! ,\ furthe r- order of Jie father to have access to |»«fcWten once a month, either party £fe t<J "PP 1 ? at ««v time raS!.!: * *»«*t«ons as te the ISd??? iaiul "bgious instruction of BE&rT;. T hc rßle for thc habeM be « JS<, harged, but without * ha-.conduct of tho wife in M»?n»g the children in the wav sho to disentitle hl>r to