FATHER TAKES CHILD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20862, 2 May 1931, Page 14

FATHER TAKES CHILD.

WHEREABOUTS NOT STATED.

MOTHER'S CLAIM FOR RETURN.

_ SUCCESS OF APPLICATION.

I [FROM OCR. OW>- CO ERE ? POXDEXT.} HAMILTON. Friday. An application for a writ of habeas I corpus was heard before Mr. Justice ! Smith in the Hamilton Supreme Court ; yesterday. The application was made by | Mrs. Honor Henricksen, of Cambridge. [ against her husband, John Henry Heui ricksen, to surrender the only child of : the marriage, Peter Henricksen. Outlining the case for the plaintiff. Mr. J. F. Strang said the only child of I the marriage,, Peter, was bom in London | in 1923. ' There had been discord and unhappiness between the parties and after considerable negotiations, a deed of separation had been entered into between them in October, 1950. There had never, counsel said, been any dispute as to who : should have the custody of the child. The deed provided that the mother should have the sole control, management, maintenance and custody of the child during his minority, iree from the control or authority of the husband, and should herself provide for the maintenance, support and education of the child. This provision was subject to two conditions. namely, that the. husband should at all times have access to the child and also that the child should not be kept in the house of the plaintiff's married sister. Soon after the separation had been effected, complaints ( were made by the husband that the child was too frequently at the house of Mrs. Henricksen's sister. Incidents at the Visit. The difficulties between the parties reached a crisis on March 22, when the husband proceeded to Auckland and without his wife's consent, took away the child and had since refused to reveal its whereabouts. Mrs. Henricksen said her husband visited her on March 22. He appeared quite friendly and asked if he could see Peter. Mrs. Henricksen took her husband in and woke the child. She then left the room, and when she returned, neither the child nor the husband was there. After a while the husband returned with a friend of his. She asked her husband where the baby was and her husband relied: " I was sorry to do this, bnt you made me do it." Her husband later positively refused to give up the child or to reveal where it was being kept For the defendant, Mr. Lundon contended that the wile' had broken her agreement and the question of the custody of the child was at large. He claimed that the husband was more qualified to look after the child than the wife. In evidence, Henricksen said that he had paid no fewer than 10 visits to Auckland to search for the child, but without success. On March 22 he had gone to Auckland with the intention of taking the child. For one thing, he was afraid that Mrs. Henricksen might scheme to take the child to England, and for another, he knew the child would have no permanent heme because of his wife's instability. Ha intended, as seen as his financial circumstances permitted, to set up a new Itsome. Ho Change in Circumstances. His Honor said the circumstances had not materially changed since the deed of separation was entered into. There was nothing against the character of either party. • In ordinary circumstances the custody of a male child would be given to the father, but these were not ordinary circumstances. Onh* a few months ago the father bad wbollv surrendered the controljof the child to the mother. He had some doubt whether he shouHd give ab?c.!ute or only limited control to the mother, but had come to the conclusion that as absolute control wasgiven fcy the deed of separation, the Conrt order should be likewise. His B'onor said he would make an order for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus to issue after three days if the child were net delivered to Mr?. Henricksen in the meantime, and he would make an inde- j pendent order vesting the cosJc.lv of the I child in her. An: application for costs w,is opnosed j by defendant's counsel, but His Honor said he would allow the plaintiff her costs. The husband had done a strong thing when he took the law into his own hands and seized the child. Costs. £lO 105, were allowed.