WANTED HER CHILDREN

NZ Truth, Issue 1152, 29 December 1927, Page 7

WANTED HER CHILDREN

Husband and Wife In Dispute For Custody of Kiddies

(From "N.Z. Truth's" MorrinsvJlle Representative.)

WITH an allegation on the part of the husband that his wife was mentally unbalanced and the wife's counter-allegation that her husband was improperly living with his housekeeper and was callous, Mr. Justice Herdman had the difficult task at Hamilton the other day of saying who was the more suitable to have charge of two children. .

and in which she made startling allegations,

NOT the least pathetic feature was the sight of two forlorn-looking

little children, sitting in the court, with their belongings done up in parcels alongside them.

Petitioner was Arthur "Walter Thompson, a farmer, living at a small place called Mangatapere, near Morrinsvllle. The respondent, his wife, prior to hec marriage had charge of the native school at a place called Rakanui, near Kawhia.

The appeal was in the nature of a re-hearing of an application for maintenance by the wife, the principle issue being the custody of the children.

It was pointed out that appellant did not object to paying maintenance, but he was concerned for the welfare of the children.

For the respondent it was stated that the parties were married in 1917. The husband vms away at the war for eighteen months, and during that period the wife earned her living as a schoolteacher, A few days after the tolrth of the third

child a fire occurred at the house. The child had died at birth and the mother was very upset

and very ill. When the fire broke out, the maid in attendance fled screaming from the house, leaving respondent and her two young children in the burning building. The sick mother had then to get up, and, clad only in her nightdress, make her way across paddocks at the height of a storm to get assistance.

The outcome was that she collapsed from exposure and shock, and after being in the Waikato Hospital for a time, was removed to a mental hospital.

While there, it was alleged, her husband acted in a most callous manner, never attempting to see her, and that he tried to get a divorce. Counsel also alleged that the woman's release from the mental hospital wasdelayed by the husband.

When finally she got free, she went to Sydney, and later she applied for maintenance, when the magistrate commented unfavorably on the attitude which the husband had adopted.

Respondent, giving evidence, stated that when her husband returned wounded from the front she helped him on a farm which he acquired, and gave him £50, as he had no money. She paid the deposit on the farm, bought the implements and stock, and furnished the house. She spent over £800 on him altogether.

While at Avondaje, where she remained for four years after the fire, her husband never wrote to her or called to see her, nor did he supply her with any necessities. She charged him with being the cause of the death of her third child through striking her (respondent) on _________________

the head one night when he returned home. This was shortly before the birth of the child. Her

husband, she said, had refused to allow her to have anything to do with the children for five years. After leaving the asylum she earned a living as a housekeeper in Sydney.

In answer to her counsel, respondent said her husband refused to have her back as he preferred his housekeeper, whom he declared was capable of more affection to the children than she was. At present she was out of employment and living in a room at Matamata. She had found it difficult to get work in New Zealand.

Counsel: Would it be possible for you to accept maintenance for yourself and leave your children with your husband? — Certainly not, because my children say he has not been living as he should with his housekeeper. I coneider it a bad example.

Her husband, she declared, opposed her discharge from the mental hospital, where she had worked very hard in the kitchen.

Counsel for appellant read a letter written 'by respondent three months before she left the mental hospital,

"A Bad Example "

Sister Removed

She now stated that this was all true. She declared that her husband had never shown any affection for her since the birth and death of her third child. She had written to her husband repeatedly, but her children told her that the housekeeper read the letters, so that probably he never got them.

Counsel: Your people are very antagonistic towards the husband, are they not? — Yes. They considered he acted very callously towards me.

Did you not tell your children that their father was a very wicked man and that you would like to see him in his "box"?— No.

She admitted that she had questioned the children about their father's behavior.

"They called the housekeeper mother," she added pathetically. "They knew nothing of me."

Respondent's sister, when asked if respondent was fit #to take care of the children, x-eplied: "Certainly, there is mo better mother." Appellant had

shown no affection for his wife, and if witness had not got her out of the asylum she would still have been there.

Counsel said there was no risk for the children while they were with the father, but the mother might suffer from further mental derangement. The evidence of both respondent and her sister showed them to be of an exciteable nature.

This remark brought the sister, who was now in the back of the court, again to her feet. "Pardon me, but I wish to speak," she called out, advancing. She then insisted on refuting the statement made by counsel and had to be conducted back to her seat.

Counsel said that at her confinement with her second child, respondent developed a peculiar mentality and had a violent dispute with her nurse. This recurred after the birth of her third child. During the time she was in the •men/tal hospital her husband made regular inquiries regarding her, but was told he could not write to her. His financial position prevented him making proper provision for her while she was in hospital.

Respondent's sister again intervened and after being enjoined to keep silent, without effect, had to be conducted from the court.

Counsel went on to say that appellant was quite prepared to pay his wife £1 a week if he could retain custody of the children.

Appellant denied his wife's allegation that he struck her on the head before the birth of her third child. He also denied absolutely the allegations of impropriety with his housekeeper. He was willing, he said, to pay his wife 30/- a week.

May Barbara Kittelty, a widow, who had acted as housekeeper to appellant and his

children

since

1923, said Thompson had always treated her with the greatest respect. It was true that the children called her "mum," but that was because her own daughter, who lived with them, did so.

In reply to a question by the judge, counsel for respondent said his client was willing to sink hep feelings and return to her husband. His Honor; That would be purgatory for everybody.

His honor described the case as a most unfortunate one. He was not satisfied that the husband had failed to provide adequate maintenance. If that had been proved, he was by no means satisfied that it had been "wilful and without reasonable cause."

The husband had had charge of the children and there was nothing to show that he had not bean a good father or had not maintained the children properly. In the interests of the children it was better at the present time for them to be with their father than with their mother. She was in no way to blame. It was her misfortune. The appeal was allowed.