CUSTODY OF A CHILD.

Taranaki Daily News, 10 September 1919, Page 6

CUSTODY OF A CHILD.

1 SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT. ■ The judgment of Mr. Justice Hosking in the case heard at the New Plymouth session of the Supreme Court on August 23, in which Mrs, Mary A. Ludecke asked for guardianship of her grandchild, Curitii Esme Merle Knight, states, inter alia: "No doubt \he father is by law primarily entitled to the custody of his children, but if the child lias been out of his custody in circumstances amounting to a waiver or abdication of his strict rights the court may refuse to restore the child to his custody if satisfied that to do so would be prejudicial to the welfare of the child. . . I am satisfied on tho evidence in the present case that the acquiescence of the father in the grandmother's custody and care of the child during the whole of its lifetime renders it necessary for the court to consider whether the state of tilings shall now be altered. In my opinion, having regard to the welfare of the child, the custody should not be changed. I do not think it necessary to set out in detail the considerations which have led me to this conclusion, but I wish expressly to say that it does not proceed upon any such grounds as the unfitness of lier parents and in no way reflects upon them. There is nothing suggested to show that the father and mother would not faithfully discharge their parontnl duties. The ground simply is that by their prolonged acquiescence in the existing state of things it would be opposed to the Welfare of the child to turn her over to the new mode of life which a change of custody would involve. I am confirmed in this by the interview I had with the child at the request of counsel." Tho Judge continued that it would appear that the court, acting under tho general jurisdiction, as it was doing in this case, would not deprive a father altogether of guardianship, but attain the same object by superseding him in the exercise of it. The order therefore would be that the infant remain in the care and custody of petitioner (Mrs. Ludecke), who was thereby appointed to ant in the nature of guardian until further order, she having undertaken to properly provide for the care, maintenance, and education of the infant. Provision was made for reasonable access by the parents. No order was made as to costs. Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for applicant, and Mr. Ronald Tl. Quilliam (instructed by their solicitors in Dannevivke) opposed the application on behalf of the child's parents.