UNDER WHICH PARENT?

NZ Truth, Issue 985, 11 October 1924, Page 6

UNDER WHICH PARENT?

Claim For Custody Of

Children

Mother Twice Divorced

A very unusual state of affairs was. disclosed m the hearing of a claim for custody of his children by Frederick Finlayson Ziegler (Mr. Martelli) against .•his former wife, Gladys Irene Spares (Mr. Luxford) which came before Mr. Justice Merdman at the Supreme Court at Auckland the other day. Though the father divorced the mother on t.ie grounds of misconduct, the latter was given custody of the children of the marriage, twin girls, aged 10 years, and a boy, aged nine. Some time latur the mother married again, but the second venture, ended as the first had, m the divorce of the wife by the husband on the grounds of misconduct. Counsel for the father of the children said that when the first divorce was granted, the petitioner was not m a position to make a. home for the family, but after the woman's second fall from the straight and narrow path he considered she was not a fit and proper person to have charge of the family and he had taken these proceedings. Right through, the petitioner had paid maintenance for the children. In evidence, the father of the children said he was not married, but that he proposed to have his family taken charge of by a married brother. Though he did not know what the mother was doing, the children seemed as if they were well enough looked after." He indicated that the action he was taking was at the instigation of the Society for the .Protection of Women and Children, 1 the representatives of which had told him that if he did not take these steps' they would. Mr. Luxford said he opposed the application on the ground that there was a genuine attachment between the mother and tho. children, and that the latter were well cared for. He pointed out that the woman seemed to have been dominated by the damaging influence of ,a. man named Xydd (co/re. ir both divorces), who dogged, her to marry him, though she would deny misconduct with him. She had steadily refused to concede to this man's advances to marry, and it -was due to his reerimiriaiions that she had been unable to defend the divorce proceedings'. The TToman In her evidence told how she had had a. visit from & representative oC the society, who had stated, that she could see nothing- wrauer, and to whom the children replied that they ,"toved their mummy." To the Bench, however, ttie "woman admitted that the visit she cpoke cf was about twelve months ajro. £he a.lso said that sac had received come money from her people m Wnarigarei, and besides the money paid hy Ziegrler she earned 30* a -iveefc for irLin.din.gr a telephone m a.n office m the city. She had also earned £la -vreek hy going" to a lady's house. The .Judge said be \rould like some evidence as to the mother' 3 character from some independent person. Unless iw -was necessary m the interests of the children, he did not wish to disturb the preseiit arrangement, -as the cliifdron -would be much better m the care of the mother. Lawyer Laxxlard said Ihrit he would undertake to supply tho evidence required. The woman had not seen Ky&d for about fifteen months. Mr. lEartelti oaid that if it .'was shown that the mother was n. fit person ,to have charge of the children they would be satisfied. The matter was adjourned pending a report on the lines asked for- by the Judge. !