SUPREME COURT

Grey River Argus, 8 April 1921, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

WESTPORT SITTINGS. FATHER’S BIGHT TO CUSTODY OF CHILD. (“Argus” Corespondent). At the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning, an application was made by Patrick Wall for writ of Habeas Corpus in respect of Evelyn Wall. This matter was before the Court in June, 1920. Mr J. Molony appeared for the applicant, and said the case was before his Honour on a previous occasion. The order of tpe Court was for the child to rem am with Mrs Radlord in the meantime. The child whs now one year and eight months old, and he proposed calling Drs. Monson and Foote to prove that there was now nothing in the child's physical condition to prevent its going into tho father’s possession. Dr Monson, called, said he had attended the child sometime ago. when it was in ill health. Now it was in good health and a- fine child. As far a- health was concerned, he knew no reason why the child should not go into the custody of the father. To Mr Cottrell (solicitor for defendant). Dr Monson said he had seen the child lately on the street and thought ii a fine healthy child. Undoubtedly the child had had very excellent care under Mrs Radford, in whose custody th. l Court had placed it. Dr I’. Foote, called, said he visited the child on March 30 last. Ju Ris opinion it was a very line specimen, and in good -health. He did not think on acc’Mmt of health that there was any reason tho child should not go into the custody of the father. In reply to Mr Cottrell, he said the baby was a nervous type, of child. Mr Cottrell said when the. case came' before the Court nine months ago, the order was that the child on account of its |weak condition, should remain in the custody of Mrs Radford. Since then the father had not been near the child except on one occasion. He had not made any provision for clothing or food for the child, and had not kept any of the promises made to the (,‘ourt. The lather was living in a house by himself at Cape I'oiilwiml. He understood the intention was to place tho child in th<‘ ta’-o ol a neighbour, about three miles away from where he was living. . It was only nine months since the last action, was brought, by the father to obtain ; custody of the child. During that tiiim, he had not contributed one penny towards its maintenance. Mrs' Radford had devoted practically her life (o the child's care. Mr Cortrell’ submitted that the Court had the right to decide what was best and! proper in the interest of the. child. | Th.- child was being excellently cared| lor am] had grown to a- healthy strong (•midition under present custody, and it was for the Court to say whether, ii should be removed. Mrs Radford called, said the child ( was now a very heathy one. She had had an uphill fight to save its life i when a small baby. The father had not taken any interest in the child;: had not come io see it, even at ( hrist-] mas lime. Only <”‘ce did he visit the house ami on that occasion he came to have the baby christened in the* Catholic Church. She did not object.’ The Judge; ■’You cannot object to ;he father having the child chiistt.ned■. ~, w |,„t,-ver Clnii'H) h!' I Mr Molony sir'd on ilie last occasion

Ihe Court . Lio decision io get custody of ilie child binged oil its, |,hvsieii| condition Then it. was pro-1 carious. Xuw the . Idld wa s lietd'liv/ end ho did not know of tin.y reason whv it should 'iol be piaeeii in the: 'iljli'r’s care. Mrs ILidford said site had only been I Si-ived with a. writ tor Habeas Corpus: on Thursday night hrst, and knew no-: l long of Ihe intentions the father had n, r.gaol to Ihe child's . are. She sent i . ash M r .Mobuiy wl'el'o i lie child , V . HU |,I be going io, »'“l L'OS'| ,, was to be placed. Mr Melony, sent Tinelt word to say he did "01. h, where the elnld was going, a' l ' l h,. v were under no obligation to hoc. I The Judge asked what relation was \|,Bodford to Ihe child, and ";i.s ng fol med she was an aunt. ; His Himmn said he. uould allow, matter to stand over until nex ( sitting of tho Court. Mr M„l<my objected to the. delay ■ He could see no reason, why tho eh'ld should not be'handed over at once. The father hail a right to it. Ilealih, ,vas no« no longer :i, bar to h'S so-| curing custody. His Honor: “I have got to think of llm interests of the child.” He itimiglit it a. pity the child should I’”, taken away from the, care which h ; 'd been exercised on its behalf so dilg genil.v and well. At the. same Line,,' the father’s rights had to bo taken i)g i<> account. Mr Molony said it was proposed Io leave I.he < hild in the care, of respectable people, where it would be eared lor properly anil healthier colldi-, limis than ii was at the present lime. The .Judge: “If 1 am to think of the i. iirtei'ests, I should feel very iniwh inclined td leave, tlia eltilif. whore it is.” Mr Melony further obleciml Io post-, pmiement. I .Mr Cottrell said that as there were im lined to be unreasonable by cither party, if a consultation were

arranged an n inicable settlement could be come to. Mr Wall: “May I speak, Sir?” His Honor: “Only through your ('oun.sel did not speak. The Judge: “It i« at serious matter' to keep a. child away from its father, but T must concern myself about the welfare of the child, and 1 therefore

propose to postpone the matter until, next sitting of the Court, in three months’ time,” f