CONDUCT OF PARENTS.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 226, 24 September 1929, Page 5

CONDUCT OF PARENTS.

"CHASTITY NOT MUCH CONSEQUENCE" DIVORCED HUSBAND AND WIFE CUSTODY OF TWO CHILDREN. COURT GRANTS ONE TO EACH.

"It is clear that chastity has not been regarded by either party to the suit as a virtue of .much consequence in the conduct of life. Nothing is proved against the wife after marriage, and in this respect she is better than her husband. She was not, however, chaste before marriage, and she was at least 'philandering' with another man while her husband was receiving attention for his war disabilities at Hanmer. After the wife's departure, the husband engaged various housekeepers for his house., The petition for divorce is founded on proof of misconduct with one of them. There is also evidence to show misconduct with another woman in his own house. The Court has no very decisive choice between the parents on the ground of sexual morality." Left Him Three Times, The above comment was made by his Honor (Mr. Justice Smith) at the .Supreme Court this morning, in giving judgment on a motion to make absolute on the petition of Violet Louisa Thomas a decree nisi granted against John Walter Thomas on May 29 last, peticioner also asking for the custody _of two children, aged eight years and six years. The parties were married on January 5 1021, the husband, during the war, being a soldier with the Australian Forces. He was receiving foi war disabilities an Australian soldier's pension of between £10 and £17 per month. Most of the allegations against him in respect of drunkenness related to the years 192,. and 1924 - , ,«. 1 1, " His Honoi' said the wife left her husband in October, 1924, and April, 1925, but returned to him after each departure. She left her husband finally m October, 1925, and owing to her husband's treatment of her at that time she was justified in leaving the house. The wife made the acquaintance of a certain man while her husband was away receiving treatment at Hanmer. She was evidently on very friendly terms with him. The circumstances were certainly not satisfactory from the point of view of the wife. Good-bye for Ever. Shortly before October 4, 1925, the petitioner wrote to the respondent complaining that she was being starved, resenting his complaints about her, and stating that if she didn't suit, it was "good-bye for ever." She added: "You can have the children if you like." On leaving respondent she left the two children of the marriage. On November 13, 1925, she endeavoured to obtain (inter alia) the guardianship of the children in the Magistrate's Court, but her first application was adjourned sine die and was not proceeded with. She made a second application on November 25, 1927, and it was dismissed. On December 21 last the elder child left the house and went to his mother.

The Child's Interests. "After considering the circumstances of the elder boy's departure, which I find was purely voluntary," said his Honor, "and considering the whole of the evidence, I -come to the conclusion that, in the interests of that child, the custody of the mother should not be disturbed. The problem really before the Court is the custody of the younger child, now almost six years of age. The question hero is—are there very exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify the younger child being left in the custody of the respondent? I think there are, and for the following reasons: —When the wife left the husband she told him he could have the children of the marriage; her petition for custody of the children was dismissed by the magistrate in November, 1027, although at that time the misconduct of the husband had not been proved; the husband maintained both children from October, 1925, to December, 1928. .

Parents' Conduct. "In my judgment the best course to take, having regard first to the interests of the children and next to the claims of the petitioner, is to order tliat the petitioner (the wife) have the custody of the elder boy, until the further order of the Court, and that the respondent (the husband) have the custody of the younger child, until the further order of the Court. Neither child is to be removed out of the jurisdiction of this Court without the further order of the Court. The nature of this order will make it incumbent upon each parent to take care of his or her own conduct, and to take proper care of the child committed >for the present to his or her custody." The decree nisi for the dissolution of the marriage is made absolute. Mr. Hubble appeared for petitioner, and Mr. Mamony for respondent.