AN ADOPTED CHILD.

Evening Star, Issue 14963, 24 August 1912, Page 5

AN ADOPTED CHILD.

THE MOTHER WANTS IT BACK. i A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Mr Justice WiJliams -was yesterday called on to deal with a motion to make absolute a rule nisi for a writ of habeas corpus. The motion related to a curlyheaded boy sis years of age. This wee chap eat in court during the after-noon by the side of the man and wife who have adopted him. Close bv sat the child's mother and her husband, who by mutual consent moved to have the child restored to their car*,'. Mr A. S. AdamK (instructed by Brent and Son) appeared- for the mother "and her husband j Mr W. C. MacOregor (instructed by Hislop and Lang) appeared to shew cause on behalf of the adopting parents. The parties were living at Greymouth in 1907-08. When the child was bom the mother became very ill. aaid put out the baby to nnwe, and ultimately it was arranged that the person who" had undertaken the nursing, who has no children of her own, should'.apply for an adoption order. 'the matter was placed in the hands of a solicitor at Greymouth, who took the preliminary steps, but did not complete the business. The nurse and her husband subsequently lodged a fresh application at Dunedir. for an adoption order, and the present proceedings were taken on behalf of the mother to regain custody of the child. Voluminous affidavits were before the Court. His Honor said he had lead them. Mr Ma.eGre.gor said that he would like to cross-examine the parties upon their affidavits. The Court assented. The mother, answering Mr MacGregor, said that she was married on 2nd Jfovember, 1906, at Hobart. She liad known her husband all her life. Prior to the mar-' riago he had been in New Zealand about three years. He returned to Hobart in October, 1906. She had not seen him for about two years. She went to Greymouth with her husband, and the boy was born on the 25th November. After the birth a married woman (not the one now applying) took charge of him. Then witness had mental trouble for about four months. She left this woman's place about January, 1907. The boy was left in her care, because witness was unable to look after him. Her husband said he would not have the child in the house. Witness did not get this woman to adopt the child. There was no legal adoption order, but the then nurse was paid £SO to adopt the child. Witness had no doubt that that £3O was borrowed from her brother. Then witness rejoined her husband at Dunollie, about seven miles from Greymouth. In January of 1908 witness was in bad health again, and in a private hospital at Greymouth. ■Mrs R. (the woman with whom the child had been placed) brought back the child to her. The child had been looked after. Witness did not know that the, baby had been so neglected that the police threatened Mrs R. with proceedings if she did not at once return it to its mother. Mrs R. did not say that she had been ordered to return the" child. The child had been cared for. Witness kept the child at the hospital for about eight weeks. She was not trying to get someone else to adopt it. Her husband wanted it put out. About the month of March witness agreed with Mrs G. (the present apnlicant) to take charge of the child. Witness met her only a couple of days before the child was taken away. She knew nothing about Mrs G. excepting what she had been told. The arrangement was to pay £1 a week. There was no arrangement for adoption by Mrs G..aiid her husband liked the child. The £1 was reduced to 7s 6d, and that went on for about four months. Witness made the payment* fortnightly. Witness knew that arrangements were being made for the adoption of the child. Witness did not like it, but her husband insisted on it. The arrangement was made in July. She went with her husband to Mr Joyce's in Greymouth and signed a document consenting to the adoption. After that she assumed that the child was legally adopted. It was in January of this year that she became aware 'that the. adoption order was .never completed. Her husband told her. She had written several times to Mrs G., but had never been to see the boy. She was never able to come across from Tasmania, though flhe had the money and had an open invitation to go to Greymouth to see him. She had never seen the boy since" she parted with him. Mr MacGregor: Why was that?—-Be-cause I was too ill after the time he was taken, and I wa6 ordered to Australia by the doctors. Did you never think of taking a trip across to New Zealand. You had an open invitation to come and stay with the G.'s? —Ye«. And you never came near the child from that day to this?— No. Did you not have the money to come axioms?—l had the monev. You have no other children ?—No. Yet you did not come across to see your child!— No. You know Mrs G. has brought the child up well?—I know that. You are quite satisfied with the way she has looked after him?—l am. And you neither wrote to or visited Mrs G. from July, 1908, till August, 1910?—1 was invited to go and see them at Christmas, and I was arranging to go, but was taken ill. Yet it is a, fact that you did not write for over two years?—l did not know where to write to. But you knew Mr G. was in New Zealand in a settled position?—l asked my husband to get the address, but until he sart - how distressed I was he did net tell me what it was. My husband would never consent to my coming over to visit Mrs (J. How does he consent to you taking these proceedings now?— Because" he knew I was fretting. Continuing, witness said she never write to the Q.'a that th« adoption

was not legal. She never gave them a hint that ehe was going to try to take the child. This was done by the advice of her lawyer. Mr MacGregor: Don't you know that Mrs O. 16 very much attached to the child? —She cannot be as much attached to him. as I am. Mr MacGregor: Well, possibly not. Examined by Mr Adams, witness eaid that her husband was earning, good money. and was quite willing to look after the child. Her people in Hobart were in comfortable circumstances. The husband, in answer to Mr MacGregor, said that he returned to Hobart a few days before his marriage. Ho knew his wife was about to be confined. He then came back to New Zealand. He never insisted upon the child being adopted. He could not have it in his house, because his. wife was mentally troubled. He left the child in charge of Mrs R. Ho never paid tier £3O to adopt the child. She got £3O forth? maintenance of the child, which she had for about 12 months. He did not think Mrs R. ever neglected the child. She was a very kind person. He saw the state. the child was in when it was returned. He did not know that the police ordered it to be returr.?d to the mother. He was quite willing to have taken the child if his wife had got well. His wife never recovered her health until she returned to Tasmania in 1909. Witness wished then that he had tfic child back. He knew that the adoption order in 1908 had rot been made—that it had never gone through tho Court. He was sorry that he had kept this fact bottled up'until last January. He personally wanted the child back. He had seen Mrs G. since arriving in Dunedin, but he never told her that he did r:ot want the child even now. It was not to save publicity that he got the child adopted. Witness signed the papers consenting to the adoption order. Witness was underground mine manager in, a mine 40 miles out of Hobart. His father-in-law was manager. It was since his wife commenced these proceedings that he got this position. His father-in-law did not have the mine until then. Witness was a coal miner. It was true that he was anxious to have the child. He had been so for the past two years; and had known during all that time that the child was not legally adopted. In answer to Mr Adams, witness said that he had always earned- £3 a week. In his present position he was getting £3 6s a week, with a bonus. He was genuinely anxious to get the child back. His wife had always worried about the child. She was worrying so much that at last he told her that the adoption order was not complete. Mr MacGregor, in the of a lengthy address, said it was admitted that no sufficient, cause had been made for making this rule absolute. The rule professed to have been issued on behalf of the mother and her husband. It was admitted that the latter had no rights in the matter at all. The onlj- person who could have any rights was the mother. In New Zealand a parent might transfer the whole of his rights in a child, whether legitimate- or illegitimate. In this case the father and the mother (signed the necessary assent. All the parties interested in the child did everything they could do to bring about the legal adoption. Nothing further was wanted but the actual order. Owing to the unfortunate and unexplained neglect of a solicitor to bring it to a conclusion, it was never made. The effect of what was done was to create, a contract between the parties by which the child was adopted—a contract which could be enforced in New Zealand. It was tine that the formal order was never made, but that did not do awar with the act of the parties. Tha English cases and all other cases showed that, the chief question was the interests of the child, and it would be harsh and cruel to now remove this child from the people who had reared it and give it to the mother whom it had never known. Mr Adams's points were: That the mother's rights were paramount, and could only be displaced by showing that she was guilty of some misconduct, or that the child's interests in a serious and important particular were interfered with. That, the order not having been made, the case remained as if no application had be«n made; that the mother, having been seriously ill, could not bo a consenting party; that the mother was in ignoranoe. of the fact that the order vae not completed, therefore in ignoranoe of herrights, and conld not be prejudiced. His Honor said that he would take tune to consider.