THE CUSTODY OF CHILDREN.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXIX, Issue 10661, 10 January 1911, Page 2

THE CUSTODY OF CHILDREN.

(Per Press Association.) ' - Duuedin, January 9. • Decision was given by Mr Justice Williams in the case in which Hugh Tlitfni'son moved for a writ of habeas crcpus for tho restoration of two sons (aged six ond four years respectively), who had been surreptitiously taken by his wife after he had left her and put the two children in charge of his mother. His Honor held that the rights of the father should not override the wishes of the mother, and even if there had been marital misconduct on the part of the mother the Court could make an order in. her favor. The facts showed that Thomson left his wife in August i9OB, taking the children with him after the .separation. The conduct of the husband seemed wholly unjustifiable: Mrs Thomson wrote and telegraphed asking after the children, and he never replied. He gave her no information as . to where the children were. A few'weeks after he left another- child- was born, and though the wife wrote informing him of the birth he never answered and never sent any money to maintain, herself or the child. When the wife found out where the other children were she called on their grandmother, luit was refused permission to see them. She then took them away surreptitiously, aiid went to Napier, where she got a situation as a housekeeper to Mr Robertson, a retired contractor. When she first went to Napier she went under the name of Mrs Robertson, giving as her reason that she thought novone would find her there. That, said his Honor, was most indiscreet, but looking at the situation she was placed in by her husband leaving her unsupported and with,a young child in her charge,! there was nothing unreasonable in her taking a. place as a housekeeper for a.man in the position Mr Robertson was said to be in. His Honor said.hjs was satisfied that since the separation the marital conduct of the husband had been shown to be blameable, ~ and; the marital conduct of" the wife had not. Looking at the welfare of the infants, his Honor held he ought the wishes of;the mother in.respect of the ,'custody of the children to prevail over -those of the father. . Continuingi. his Honor stated that there remains-,the most important question of religion. The father is a Presbyterian and the mother a Roman Catholic. The: children were christened in the' Roman Catholic Church. It is beyond 'question that the father has the right-to have, tho children brought up in the religion he professes, and that the Act of 1886 does not interfere with this right, and even when the father is dead the rule applies. The same duty would exist if the child were the child of a- Jew, Parsee, Mahomedan or Buddhist. In concluding, his Honor decided that the children (when capable of receiving religious education) ought to be brought up and educated as Pres-bs-terians, and to order that the children remain under the care of the mother until a further order of the j Court is made, the father to have access to the children once a month, either party to have the liberty to apply at any' time for further directions as to the custody, education and religious instruction of the children. The rule for habeas corpus was discharged without costs, the conduct of the wife in removing the children in the way she did being sufficient to disentitle he* to costs.