CARE OF CHILDREN

Taranaki Daily News, 18 April 1935, Page 16

CARE OF CHILDREN

GRANDFATHER’S RESPONSIBILITY. STRATFORD COURT HEARING. Charged with failing ■to comply with the terms of a maintenance order in respect of his four grandchildren, John Cameron, Stratford, aged 83, appeared before Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., at the Stratford court yesterday. The complainant in the case was Ida Cameron, defendant’s daughter-in-law, and mother of the children. Mr. N. H. Moss appeared for Cameron and Cameron was represented by Mr. P. Thomson. ’ Cameron was £6 in arrears on March 11, it was stated. Cameron admitted the arrears, but in turn put in an application for variation or cancellation of the order in view of straitened circumstances. Since the order was made by consent, said Mr. Mo&s, Cameron had suffered a severe decrease of income. Now his income was wholly for his own “keep.” The father of the children Was in New Zealand, and it was felt' by the defendant that Mrs. Cameron had made no attempt to get in touch with him. The defendant was 83 years of age, and was hard hit by the depression. The mother of the children was quite a young woman, and not beyond doing something herself. In evidence Cameron stated that he and his wife lived with one of his sons and paid board. At the time he agreed to support the children, he said, his income was about £2OO a year. Some time ago Mrs. Cameron agreed to accept 10s a week in view of his seriously depleted income, which was now about £B6 a year. He had recently had to pay £lOOO cash in respect of k guarantee he had-under-taken of a third of the purchase price of his son’s farm. His wife was not entirely dependent on him, having a small income of her own. He had had urgent calls for financial assistance from members of his family of eight.

Steps had been taken to find the father of the children, said Mr. Thomson, and a maintenance order had been taken out against him. He had been found but had been arrested for vagrancy and gaoled. It was obviously of no use taking proceedings against him for maintenance. He suggested that a man of Cameron’s age might well draw on his capital to meet payments. The money in the post office could be drawn at will. She had taken 1 proceedings against her husband, said Mrs. Cameron in evidence, but the summons could not be served. Later she was informed by the police that he was in gaol, but she had, taken no action against him, as she could not see that It would help. To Mr. Moss Mrs. Cameron said that she delayed taking action because for years she did not know her husband’s address.. Cameron senr. had helped all his Other sons, she said. She denied that she had not endeavoured’to find her husband because she had been told by her solicitor, that the paternal grandfather of the children was responsible for their keep in the absence of the father. The money she had in the Public Trust she could not draw for five years. He did not think a conviction justified, said the magistrate, because Mrs. Cameron apparently agreed with her father-in-law that she would accept 10s a week. There had been no default until February 28, 1935, but since then there had been default, though it was not serious. He certainly did' not wish to convict Cameron, and would not do so. Regarding the application for variation of the order, Mr. Woodward said that he had been impressed by Mrs. Cameron’s evidence as to her correspondence with her husband, and he felt that she had not done all that she could to press her claims against her husband. He suggested that the application for variation of the order be adjourned, pending further inquiries into the possibilities of securing an order against the husband. The hearing of the application was therefore adjourned for two , months.