FATHERS UNKNOWN

Hokitika Guardian, 8 June 1926, Page 4

FATHERS UNKNOWN

CLAIM FOR ATAINTENANCI.

AUCKLAND, .lime 2. Coming to the conclusion that a woman’s children will, by the lime they lira ajl in a position to support themselves, have cost the State £|,j2o, the Education Department, through the police. proceeded against the

math: r in the Magistrate's Court this

moruin<.;. fur the making ot an order against her to lie paid Irani a legacy, which the woman is to receive at some future date, t i pay the ( -ost of their present maintenance. Mr H. A. Young, S.M., was on the bench. Mr Brown, for the department, said

that the circumstances of the case were extraordinary. The woman had had a considerable ntimher of illegitimate children and it. was impossible

to find fathers of any of them. The eldest, child was committed to a receiving hoinc in BIOS), and was now self-supporting. In 1921 another was committed to the care of the State, hut had become self-supporting since the complaint was made. In October, 1921, three more children were committed to the Christchurch Receiving Home, and since that time another had been born, which would become the charge of the State.

ENTITLED TO LEGACY. The defendant’s mother, who was still living, was left a life interest in £4OOO, 'and had contributed to the support- of the children, having already paid the Education Department £3OO. After her death, it share of this estate, some £SGO or £OOO, would go to the defendant, .mil the Education Department asked that a.n order should ho made against the defendant for some portion of tire money which would come to her. It laid already cost the State £575 ta support the defendant's children, .and it was csti- | mated that a further £950 would lie spent before they were in a. position to support themselves. ' The magistrate said that the defendant’s children would have cost the State about £1509 by the time they were self-supporting. He thought that some of the money coming to her should be earmarked so that tie children would not continue to he a burden on the public purse. An order was made accordingly that the defendant should pay £1 Is each for maintenance of two children, and 11s a week for a third, a total of £2 13s. The magistrate said that he did not expect that the defendant should pay tho charges at present, hut the arrears could be deducted from her legacy when it came to her.