Application of Shaheen
| Decision Date | 05 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 211.,211. |
| Citation | 11 A.2d 73,127 N.J.Eq. 75 |
| Parties | Application of SHAHEEN. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Proceeding in the matter of the application of Edward Shaheen for the right of visitation to his infant child, Joan Stelling Shaheen. From order of Court of Chancery upon advice of advisory master, awarding custody of infant child to its father, Edward Shaheen, and to Mr. and Mrs. William J. McCarthy, two unrelated strangers with whom the father proposed to live, the child's mother appeals.
Reversed.
Jacob Van Der Clock and M. Metz Cohn, both of Paterson, for defendant-appellant.
William V. Breslin, of Englewood, for petitioner-respondent.
The appeal in this case is from an order of the Court of Chancery upon advice of an Advisory Master, awarding custody of an infant child to its father, Edward Shaheen, and to Mr. and Mrs. William J. McCarthy, two unrelated strangers with whom the father proposed to live.
The proofs are meager, the hearing having been informal, without submission of a stenographic record, and the facts are elicited mainly from what is designated as a supplemental state of case, consisting of a summary of the evidence.
It appears that the couple, who lived with the wife's mother, separated after a series of quarrels. The child, a girl three years old, remained with her mother. Upon application to the Court, right of visitation for three days a week was given to the father, together with custody of the child one day each week. These privileges were subsequently amplified so as to include visitation on successive days, complete custody for one week, and the right of custody during any vacation period or leave of absence the husband might have, not exceeding a week's duration.
The wife refused to comply with the order, giving the child's illness as the reason for not allowing it out of her home. Though cited for contempt and warned by the Advisory Master that her failure to obey the order would result in placing the child in a foster home to insure obedience, she chose not be to dissuaded from her expressed intention of continued antagonism. After apprisal of that situation, upon advice of the Advisory Master, the order was entered, from which appeal is now made, giving full custody to the father and the McCarthys.
There is no doubt as to the persistent obduracy of the wife. Some explanation, though not condonation, may be gleaned from the order relating to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheehan v. Sheehan
...determining the question of custody. Sheehan v. Sheehan,38 N.J.Super. 120, 127, 118 A.2d 89 (App.Div.1955); Application of Shaheen,127 N.J.Eq. 75, 11 A.2d 73 (E. & A.1940). All of the foregoing rules have as their keystone the 'welfare' of the ' Welfare' of the child includes many elements ......
-
Nehra v. Uhlar
...287-288 (Mo.Ct.App.1971); In re Guardianship of Rodgers, 100 Ariz. 269, 413 P.2d 744 (Sup.Ct.1966). See also, In re Shaheen, 127 N.J.Eq. 75, 76-77, 11 A.2d 73 (E. & A. 1939); In re Adoption of Child by I.T. and K.T., 164 N.J.Super. 476, 486, 394 A.2d 120 In light of the foregoing examinatio......
-
Adoption of a Child by I.T., Matter of
...solely as a means of penalizing the adoptive parents. (As to an analogous situation in a custody matter, see In re Shaheen, 127 N.J.Eq. 75, 76, 11 A.2d 73 (E. & A.1940); Application of Lang, 9 A.D.2d 401, 193 N.Y.S.2d 763 (App.Div.1959), aff'd 7 N.Y.2d 1029, 200 N.Y.S.2d 71, 166 N.E.2d 861 ......
-
Wojnarowicz v. Wojnarowicz
...supra, 21 N.J.Super. at page 454, 91 A.2d at page 366; In re Jackson, 13 N.J.Super. 144, 80 A.2d 306 (App.Div.1951); In re Shaheen, 127 N.J.Eq. 75, 11 A.2d 73 (E. & A.1940); Dixon v. Dixon, 71 N.J.Eq. 281, 282, 71 A. 1133 (E. & A.1906); Power v. Power, 66 N.J.Eq. 320, 327, 58 A. 192 (E. & A......