Claffey v. Claffey
| Decision Date | 21 February 1949 |
| Citation | 135 Conn. 374,64 A.2d 540 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CLAFFEY v. CLAFFEY et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Inglis, Judge.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Mary K. Claffey against Edward A. Claffey and another to obtain custody of child. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Frank T. Healey, and James T. Healey, both of Waterbury, for appellants.
Arthur M. McDonald, of Waterbury, for appellee.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, DICKENSON and ELLS, JJ.
In this habeas corpus proceeding judgment was rendered for the plaintiff giving her custody of her daughter, about two years of age, against the defendants, father and mother of the plaintiff's husband with whom the child had lived most of the time since her birth. The defendants have appealed.
The facts found may be summarized: The plaintiff and her husband were living in Waterbury when the child was born. The plaintiff was in poor health, and for that reason when the child was about two months old she, her husband and the child went to live in the home of the defendants. About three months later she and her husband moved to Rochester, New York, leaving the child with the defendants. At first the plaintiff and her husband lived in a rooming house there, but they shortly removed to a three-room apartment. The plaintiff was thereafter anxious to bring the child to live with them, but she suffered a miscarriage and her health was poor. She visited the child in Waterbury on four occasions. Disagreements arose between the plaintiff and her husband, and finally they separated. The husband still lives in Rochester. She continued to occupy the apartment. She supports herself by nursing. Her mother, who has brought up seven children of her own, lives with her. Conditions there are such that the apartment would be a suitable home for the child. The plaintiff has a normal amount of affection for her daughter, and she and her mother are suitable persons to have the care and upbringing of the child. The home of the defendants in Waterbury is comfortable and in a good neighborhood but is somewhat overcrowded; the child has been cared for by her paternal grandmother and an unmarried daughter of the latter; both have an affection for the child and have given her good care.
While certain corrections in and additions to the finding are sought, we can make none which would materially affect the result. No doubt the finding that the plaintiff had a normal affection for the child and that she and her mother were suitable persons to care for her was based to a large extent upon observation of them as they appeared as witnesses. The trial court was entitled to base the finding in question upon that observation. Dadio v. Dadio, 123 Conn. 88, 92, 192 A. 557. In State v. McLaughlin, 126 Conn. 257, 264, 10 A.2d 758, and in Christie v. Eager, 129 Conn. 62, 66, 26 A.2d 352, we were discussing a charge of the court concerning the credibility to be accorded witnesses; and in Kovacs v. Szentes, 130 Conn. 229, 232, 33 A.2d 124, we were considering findings of the court as to facts occurring in the courtroom entirely apart from its observation of witnesses as they appeared on the stand. In none of our decisions since the Dadio case have we derogated from the principle that a trial court, in reaching its conclusion, may properly take into consideration the subjective characteristics of a person which are involved in the issues of a case like this, as they are disclosed by the court's observation of that person as a witness in the case.
As appears from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Zakai F.
...interests of the child in In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous) , this court relied on a prior decision of this court, Claffey v. Claffey , 135 Conn. 374, 64 A.2d 540 (1949). See In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous) , supra, 177 Conn. at 659–60, 420 A.2d 875. In Claffey , a mother sought to regain......
-
McGaffin v. Roberts
...is modifiable. Compare Hao Thi Popp v. Lucas, 182 Conn. 545, 438 A.2d 755 (1980), with Baram v. Schwartz, supra, and Claffey v. Claffey, 135 Conn. 374, 64 A.2d 540 (1949). Acknowledging the natural importance of parenthood as we have, we must recognize that § 45-43 is under the explicit "be......
-
In re Paulo T.
...to analogous cases, namely, In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous) , 177 Conn. 648, 420 A.2d 875 (1979), which relied on Claffey v. Claffey , 135 Conn. 374, 64 A.2d 540 (1949). In re Zakai F. , supra, 336 Conn. at 285–88, 255 A.3d 767. Specifically, the court noted that in Claffey v. Claffey , s......
-
Juvenile Appeal, In re
...for commitment, that revocation will be in the child's best interests unless the state can prove otherwise. 11 See Claffey v. Claffey, 135 Conn. 374, 377, 64 A.2d 540 (1949). The public policy of this state is "to strengthen the family and to make the home safe for children by enhancing the......