ILLEGITIMATE CHILD

Grey River Argus, 16 December 1943, Page 2

ILLEGITIMATE CHILD

MOTHER RECLAIMS IT.

WELLINGTON, Dec. 15. A type of Habeas Corpus application rare in New, Zealand Courts one by a young mother of an illegitimate child and her husband requiring the intending adopting parents of the child to deliver it up to her—was decided by Mr. Justice Blair, in the Supreme Court, Wellington, in favour of the plaintilts. His Honour said the case had an uncommon charming element: that of the mother of an illegitimate child anxious to have it. In many instances this was not so, the dominant motive of the mother in most cases being to rid herself of what she regarded as an incubus. The circumstances of the case were that after the birth of the child, the mother gave it to the Child Welfare Department to be placed in the care of a foster-mother. She subsequently married, but consented to the cliild being given for adoption. Intending adopting, parents, the defendants, wer-i found, but in the. three months probationary period which is observed in sucti cases before a child is final ly adopted, the mother (with her husband) decided that she wished to have the child back. The intending adopting parents refused to surrender the child. The mother and h er husband adopted the child ;themsr.’ves, shortly before the. writ ot Habeas Corpus was issued by them. His Honour said the history ot the ease stiowed that the mother never lost interest in the child. Fhe naid for its keep when it was placed in the hands of the foster-mother and visited that place at some inconvenience. Obviously that was disinterested interest, not for show but because she wanted to see the child. That was a charming element and to his mind coloured the case as far as she was concerned . It could not be overlooked or got over that this was the plaintiff mother’s baby and she wanted to have the care and custody of the flesh of her flesh. Regarding the defendants he was equally filled with admiration for their attitude throughout the case. There was nothing which did otherwise than reflect. credit on them. They were anxious to retain possession of the child, and their anxiety was completely wanting in any sordid element.' He was sorry he could not decide in the defendants’ favour, but he thought thev would find, even had he done so. that sooner or later they would have to give up the baby, because the law was too'Strong for them. 1 "■’’i’lWJK