STRUGGLE FOR A CHILD

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17979, 26 March 1930, Page 6

STRUGGLE FOR A CHILD

HUSBAND SEEKS CUSTODY. WIFE RESISTS PETITION. HOSTILE SCENES. Details of an alleged struggle for the custody of a child were given in the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court today before Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., when Horace William Burrell, commercial traveller, Auckland sought variation of an order made 18 months ago, under which his wife, who is separated from him, was given custody of the child. The husband now asked for the child to be placed in his care. The child in question is a boy, aged five, named Roland Courtney Burrell. For the petitioner Mr. D. Seymour appeared, respondent being represented by Mr. H. J. McMullin. Mr. Seymour said His Worship made the original order after some hesitation. Petitioner was not alleging that the mother had been negligent of the child. The chief difficulty was that petitioner had been refused access to the boy and some rather unseemly scenes had taken place. Mrs. Burrell had been travelling round the country taking various positions and the kind of life she had been leading did not suggest itself as a desirable condition for a child of this age to live in. It had been understood when the order was made, that the child was going to live with his mother in Auckland. Petitioner, Horace William Burrell, said that for a short time after the order was made he was able to gain access to the child at week-ends. On four occasions he was allowed to take the child to his parents’ place. He had returned the boy at 6 p.m. on each occasion to the residence of Mrs. Burrell's parents. On the last occasion Mrs. Burrell received the boy and invited petitioner inside. She asked him if he was still anxious to have Roland. He replied in the affirmative and asked why. She said it was unsatisfactory to have the boy going backwards and forwards and that he could have him then for good if he liked. Witness asked her to state this in writing, but she said that if he did not take the boy that night he could not have him at all, as she was going away the following week-end.

Petitioner said lie was going away that night to New Plymouth and would get the boy the next week-end. She told him to take him then or not at all. Return of Boy Demanded. He agreed to take him there and then. She got him some things ready and promised to send the remainder along. He then took the boy to ins parents’ place, Mrs. Burrell promising to write to petitioner’s solicitor confirming the arrangement. Petitioner said he cancelled his trip to New Plymouth and came to Hamilton next day. Later in the week he heard there had been trouble in Auckland, his parents having received a letter from Mrs. ■Burrell’s solicitor demanding the return of the boy, who was subsequently handed over. Petitioner said he had not since been allowed to take the boy away. Since that time petitioner said his wife had been to Woodville, Waipawa, Katikati, Te Poi, Tauhei, Glevedon, Dominion Road, Auckland, and back to her people at Auckland. Petitioner stated that if given the guardianship of the child he would keep him at his parents’ home, where he would be well cared for. Witness spent every week-end with his parents. Witness denied that on the Sunday night when he was given custody of the boy, he asked to have him until Monday morning, as he was going away to New Plymouth. Witness said he came to Hamilton on the Monday to see his solicitor and acquaint him of the turn of events and to await confirmation of the arrangements from his wife. Mr. McMullin: Have you not been rung up and told the child was at the house of Mrs. Burrell’s parents and that you could go there and see him any time? —All the ringing up has been done by me. Mr. McMullin: Has Mrs. Burrell ever demurred at you seeing the child on your own?—No, but she has refused to allow me to take him out. Mr. McMullin: Has the child ever appeared to you other than well kept, or cared for? —No. And he has never exhibited any illfeeling towards you?—No, but I know this, that each time I have returned the boy he has burst into tears when I handed him over.

Nothing sinister Suggested.

Petitioner said he suggested nothing sinister in the fact of his wife moving around to different places as she had. At a number of places she had stayed with old friends of the family. His wife had told him she was making -arrangements for the child to be sent to the Brixton Road School. Mr. McMullin: There is, I believe, a real friction between your wife and your people?—That is the excuse she gives for not allowing me to take the child home. I do, not, however, think there is anything in it. Mary Jane Burrell, mother of petitioner, said she had had the child at her house and for week-ends when he was always very happy. She had always told her son .that she would look after the boy as if he were her son. She remembered the Sunday night when her son brought the child back after returning him to his mother. The hoy, on entering said: “I have come to live with you grandma.” On the Wednesday evening Mrs Burrell, her mother and a man called at the house. Mrs Burrell said she had called for Roland. Witness’ husband went to the door and told Mrs Burrell she could not have him. She called again In the afternoon, when witness said she could not hand over the child without the consent of his father. Roland on seeing the oar could not understand why he could not go for a ride in the car, as apparently he had often been in it before.

Authority from Child Welfare Dept.

The man in charge of the car said he had come with authority from - the Child Welfare Department, with instructions to hand the child over. She refused and the man then cautioned her as to the consequences of refusal. She closed the door. On the following afternoon Mrs Burrell, her mother and a relative again called. Witness refused to open the door. They then went round to the back door, where Mrs Burrell seized witness by the wrists, pushed her against the fence and picking up a piece of wood, threatened to brain her. Witness later entered the house

and sent for the police. The visitors followed her inside. When a neighbour called out that the police were coming, the visitors departed. Witness said her daughter-in-law declared: “I have been waiting a long time to put it over you and now I have got you. You will never see the boy again.” The boy, said witness, was at the police station with her husband at the time. When told the child w r as not there, Mrs Burrell accused her of poisoning him. Witness referred to an occasion when Mrs Eskridge, Mrs Burrell’s mother, was arguing with her husband at the door. Witness threatened to throw water over her, but on second thoughts went inside and closed the door. Robert Horace Burrell, police officer stationed at Auckland, and father of petitioner, said that when his son returned with the little boy, after having taken him back to his mother, his son said : “ Dad,” we have got Roland for keeps. She has handed him over unconditionally.” Witness corroborated certain of the statements given by his wife. In opening the case for the respondent, Mr McMullin said that the petitioner appeared to have raised only two points—one that the child was given to him, and the other that Mrs Burrell had visited several places while she had custody of the child. There was no contest on the score of the child not having been properly cared for. Direct Conflict of Evidence.

There would, said counsel, be a direct conflict of evidence with regard to the occasions when the child was allowed to remain at the Burrells’ It would be stated that Burrell told his wife he was going to New Plymouth for a month, and that he asked for an extension of custody of the child for another day. It was only when she found that the child had not been returned that Mrs Burrell took steps to regain possession. Mrs Burrell would also state - that she never refused her husband access to the child. She realised that the child was approaching school age, and was making arrangements lo have it sent to school. Violet Ruby Burrell, respondent, said that when her husband returned the child on this particular Sunday night, he asked her if lie could have the boy until the Monday, as ho had to go to New Plymouth on Monday night for a month. She (respondent) said she would call for him on the Tuesday. When she called on the Tuesday, petitioner’s father refused to allow her to have him, saying that she had given the boy to her husband. The boy saw her and commenced lo cry bitterly, calling out “Mummy, Mummy.” The door was shut in her face, but the. child ran down the passage and put his little hand through the letter box to her. Mrs Burrell, senr., however, seized the child and carried him away. Witness then went to town to seek legal advice. The following day witness called.again with her mother and a friend. Assault Denied. She denied that she assaulted her mother-in-law. Mr Burrell, had left a message with a neighbour that he would have the child at (he house at 11 o’clock. When witness saw Mr Burrell, however, he said they had taken legal advice and had been counselled not to hand over the child until its father returned. When she called on Thursday, Mrs Burrell, senior, told her the child was at Hamilton, but on climbing on to the fence she was able lo see the child in the house. At this stage the Magistrate requested to remove her hat. Finally when her husband returned to Auckland on the Friday she interviewed him and he refused to hand over the child. Later her mother brought her a telephone message from her husband to the effect that if she would send someone along with a written order, the child would be returned. When the boy had come back- he cried and said: “ Mummy, why did you not take me back with you when I asked you to.” Respondent said that each time the child returned from the Burrells she found him difficult to correct. When she went to slap him for any little thing he did, he would tell her that his granny said she would not slap him if he went to live with her. Very Fond of Child.” Respondent gave details of her travels. Most of tlip time she was away she said .she was staying with friends. She always informed her husband of her movements. It was incorrect that her bad only been allowed to see the boy lour or five times since October, 1928. When she was working at Morrinsville she used to come into Hamilton every Tuesday and told her husband he could ha\c the child for a time each Tuesday, but he never availed himself of the opportunity. Respondent said that the Mr Warren who accompanied her on one of her’ trips to the Burrells, was an old friend of the family. If he said lie was acting for the Child Welfare Department, she knew nothing of it. Respondent said she was very fond of her child and did not want to lose him. By allowing him to go lo the Burrells all discipline was being destroyed, as he was always more or less naughty when he returned. If allowed to retain him, she intended to remain with her mother and send him to school. (Proceeding.)