THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 220, 11 January 1911, Page 3

THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS

A DUNEDIN CASE. By Telegraph .—Pre** Association. Duncdin. Vtsterday. A decision has lie n •j'vi-u by Mr. Justice Williams in a ease ii which Hugh Thomson moved for a writ of habeas corpus for the restoration of his two -•(ins (aged >ix and tour respectively), who had been surreptitiously taken by his wife after he had !• ft 'her and put the two children in charge of his mother. His Honor held that the rights of the father should not override the rights of the mother. Kven if there iiad bieu marital mi-conduct 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, 14HIS, taking the children with him. After the separation the conduct of the husband seemid wholly unjustifiable. Mrs. Thomson wrote and teiegiaphcd. asking after the children, and lie never replied; and he gave her no information as to where tin: children were. A few weeks after he left, another child was born. Though the wife 'wrote informing him of the birth, he never answered, and never sent any money to maintain his wife or the child. When the wife found out where the other children were, she called on their grandmother, but was refused permission to see them. She then took tin n\ away surreptitiously, anil went to Xapier. where -lie got a situation as housekeeper to Mr. Robertson, a retired contractor. When >he first went to Xapier, she went under the name of Mrs. Robertson, giving as a reason that she thought no one would find her there. That, said His Honor, was most indiscreet,' Mit looking at the situation, she was place-" in bv 1"T '.n-band leaving"liev unsupported, and with a young child in her charge, there was nothing unreasonable in her taking a place as housekeeper for a man in the position that Mr. Robertson was said to be in. His Honor said he 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 to the welfare of the infants, His Honor said he ought to allow- the' wishes of the mother in respect of the custody of the children to prevail over those of the father. Continuing, His Honor stated: "There remains the most important question of religion. The father is a Presbyterian, the mother aRoman Catholic. The children were christened in the Roman Catholic Church. Iti is bevon.'l question that the. father has a right to have the children brought up in the religion he professed, and that the Act of lSSii does not interfere with this right. Kven when the father is dead the rule applies. The same dutv would exist if the child were the child of a Jew, a Parsee. a Mahomedan, or a Buddhist." In concluding, His Honor r'■'■ided thai, the children (when capable of receiving religious education)

ought >to he brought up and educated as Presbyterians, and to order that the children remain tinder the care 'of the mother until the further order of the Court, the father to have access to the children once a month, either party to have the liberty to apply at any time for further direction as to the custody, education, and religious instruction of the children. The rule for habeas corpus was discharged without eosts, the conduct of the wife in removing the children in the way she did being sufficient to disentitle her to costs.