CONTROL OF CHILDREN

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 June 1943, Page 4

CONTROL OF CHILDREN

APPEAL COURT’S DECISION

WELLINGTON, June 11. The Court of Appeal to-day discussed an appeal by Fogarty, of Geraidine, Roman Cath olic priest, against Agnes Isabella Fronting, of Belfield, Oran, a marri<The cTsTarose from habeas corpus proceedings taken by the appellant for the custody and control of a boy, aged 13, and a girl, aged eight. These children had been in the home of the Proutings for the iastfour yem The respondent was a lifelong iriena of the children’s mother, who befme her death, asked her to look aitei

th W Justice Northcroft in the Lower Court held that for the fiist two years of the period they weie with the Proutings with the aproval of tneir father, and then upon his death, for three or four months, with tnc acquiescence of the appellant, an only when he was prevented . giving them religiotis instruction the Catholic faith did he take anj stens to remove them. Lorn tnc Proutings. The childrems father had left a will directing that they be brought up in the Roman. Catholic religion and appomung tne appellant their trustee. He was personally un able to give them a home, but stated that under the direction of the present Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Christchurch he had airanged for the children, to be caied for by a niece by marriage of then father, a widow, with one daughtei,

Lower Court stated that it was satisfied that they were being well, and carefully brought up by the Proutings, and it had not been, proved that the present upbringing was unsuitable, or that it justified tne Com t on any material grounds mdeun & them to be handed over to the cus-, tody of the aPPe II3 . III -. Th ) ? ir had allowed them to be baptised in the Roman Catholic Church, and then had them brought up as Pi otestants, their father had them baptised in his church, but did not prevent'them from being brought up as Pi otestants, 1 although on his death-bed he directed that they should be brought up m hi lnjustice Northcroft did not think that he was required to decide which church was the more suitable foi their religious instruction, but was concerned only with their pi esent physical welfare. , The Court of Appeal to-day de-

ilvered separate judgments, ana m the result the Court held (the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers dissenting) that the appeal must be dismissed. The judgment of the Court dealt mainly with the facts of the case, and the Court found that the father s rights as to the religious instruction of the children had in the circumstances been abandoned and that the welfare of the children required that the custody remain with the respondent. , . . ' The Chief Justice, in his dissenting judgent, held that the father’s rights had not been abandoned and that on the grounds of both religion and welfare custody should be taken from the respondent, although in the circumstances he would suggest that the children remain with trie respondent subject to direction as to religious instruction and education by the appellant.