Adoption of Goodman, In re

• Citation: 10 Terry 550,121 A.2d 676,49 Del. 550
• Parties: , 49 Del. 550 Adoption of Thomas GOODMAN, a minor child. Petition of Arthur Nelson Sanborn, Jr., and Eleanor H. Sanborn, His Wife, For the Adoption of Thomas Goodman, a Minor. Orphans' Court of Delaware, New Castle County
• Decision Date: 04 January 1952
• Court: Family Court of Delaware

Page 676

121 A.2d 676

10 Terry 550, 49 Del. 550

Adoption of Thomas GOODMAN, a minor child.

Petition of Arthur Nelson Sanborn, Jr., and Eleanor H.

Sanborn, His Wife, For the Adoption of Thomas

Goodman, a Minor.

Orphans' Court of Delaware, New Castle County.

Jan. 4, 1952.

Thomas Muncy Keith, Wilmington, for petitioners.

LAYTON, Judge.

The Court is required to construe the word 'residents' as used in the Delaware Statute governing proceedings for adoption of minors. This Statute ¹ provides as follows:

'* * * A resident of this State who is over twenty-one years of age and not married, or a husband and wife residents of this State (if not legally separated) jointly, may petition the Orphans' Court of the county in which the petitioner or petitioners reside for an order authorizing the petitioner or petitioners to adopt a minor child or children not theirs by birth, and, if desired, for authority to change the name of such child or children.'

The petitioners' home is in Pennsylvania where they have lived for more than two years. Previously, the petitioners had resided in Delaware. For reasons of health, they moved to Pennsylvania to live on a farm which was available to them there. Mr. Sanborn works, votes and pays taxes in Delaware. His father's home in Wilmington is available to the petitioners for temporary stays. The petitioners state that they are living in Pennsylvania only temporarily and that they intend to re-establish their home in Delaware, at some future time, when they can find a suitable place in a rural area. They contend that, under these facts, they have not acquired a new domicile in Pennsylvania and that they are still domiciled in this State. They urge that the word 'residents' as used in the adoption statute is synonymous with the word 'domiciliaries'.

The words 'resident' and 'residence' are words having various statutory meanings dependent upon the context of the statute in which they are used. Such words have different connotations in different statutes and situations. They must be construed in the light of the purpose of the statute in which they appear and the result designed to be accomplished by their use. In re Jones' Case, 341 Pa. 329, 19 A.2d 280, 282. While 'domicile' and 'residence' are sometimes used interchangeably in legislative expressions, the governing factor in each case is the legislative intent. Cf. State v. Frest, 4 Har. 558; Mitchell v. Delaware State Tax Commissioner, 3 Terry 589, 42 A.2d 19, 21.

An examination of the whole adoption statute makes it clear that the Legislature intended that the home of the petitioners must be located within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of this Court. The context and purpose of the adoption statute make it manifest that the words 'residents of this State', as used in that statute, mean persons who actually dwell in Delaware and whose fixed and permanent abode or dwelling place for the time being is in this State.

The adoption statute contemplates continuing supervision and...