Commonwealth v. Dornes
| Decision Date | 11 October 1921 |
| Citation | 239 Mass. 592 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. VALENTINE DORNES. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
September 27, 1921.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., DE COURCY PIERCE, CARROLL, & JENNEY, JJ.
Bastardy. Parent and Child.
Under St. 1913, c 563, Section 7, the father of an illegitimate child, upon complaint by the mother in a police, district or municipal court of this Commonwealth within whose jurisdiction he resides, may be adjudged the father of the child and be ordered to pay a stipulated sum toward the child's support, although the mother is a resident of another State and the child was begotten and was born there.
COMPLAINT, received and sworn to in the Central District Court of Worcester County on May 24, 1920, under St. 1913, c. 563, Section 7, by one Mildred Bartels, charging that the defendant "did neglect and refuse to contribute reasonably to the support and maintenance of his illegitimate child."
On appeal to the Superior Court, the complaint was tried before Thayer, J Material evidence is described in the opinion. At the close of the evidence, the defendant moved that a verdict of "not guilty" be ordered. The motion was denied, the defendant was found guilty and "was adjudged to be the father of the child and ordered to pay the sum of $250 before June 3, 1921, and $8 per week to the probation officer." The defendant alleged exceptions.
M. T. Flaherty, for the defendant. C. B. Rugg, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
DE COURCY, J. This is a complaint under St. 1913, c. 563 for failure to contribute to the support of an illegitimate child. The mother's residence is in the State of New York, where the child was begotten and born. She came to Worcester, where the defendant lived and had his domicil, for the purpose of making and prosecuting this complaint. He was found guilty on trial, duly adjudged to be the father of the child, and ordered to pay a certain amount before June 3 1921, and further to make a weekly payment to the probation officer. It does not appear that any order was made relative to the care and custody of the child. The defendant, by his exceptions, raises a question as to the jurisdiction of the courts of this Commonwealth to deal with the case.
On the facts before us, the defendant comes within the express terms of the statute. By Section 1, etc. By Section 6, the defendant is made liable "to contribute reasonably to the support of the child during minority." Section 7, under which this complaint is brought, provides: "Any father of an illegitimate child, whether such child shall have been begotten within or without this Commonwealth . . . who neglects or refuses to contribute reasonably to the support and maintenance of such child shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be liable to all the penalties and all the orders for the support of the child provided in the case of a parent who is found guilty of unreasonably neglecting to provide for the support and maintenance of a minor child by chapter four hundred and fifty-six of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and eleven and acts in amendment thereof and in addition thereto; and the practice thereby established shall, so far as it is applicable, apply to proceedings under this section."
The contention of the defendant, in substance is that the purpose of our bastardy laws is to secure the municipality or State against any loss or expense for the child's maintenance; and that where the domicil of the mother, and presumably of the child is in another State, there is no basis for the jurisdiction of our courts. It is true that historically legislation of this character is connected with the system of poor relief; there being no legal obligation on the putative father to support his illegitimate child at common law. See Illegitimacy Laws, of the United States, Department of Labor, Children's Bureau, 1919. Wright v. Wright, 2 Mass. 109 . Apparently the main object of such legislation has been to provide security for the town liable to support the bastard child. This was emphasized after the St. 1859, c. 239, gave substantial control of the litigation to the overseers of the poor in the town of the complainant's residence. But both before and after that statute was enacted, another recognized purpose was to compel the putative father to aid the mother in the support of the child. Hill v. Wells, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C.C. v. A.B.
... ... 3 See also Moncrief v. Ely, 19 Wend. 403, 405-406 (N.Y.1838). The American courts adopted that view as well. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Dornes, 239 Mass. 592, 593- ... Page 369 ... 594, 132 N.E. 363 (1921); Simmons v. Bull, 21 Ala. 501, 504 (1852); State ex rel. Beebe v ... ...
-
State v. Bordis
...duty to care for an infant at common law was upon the mother. Times have changed, however, and so has the law. See Commonwealth v. Dornes, 239 Mass. 592, 132 N.E. 363 (1921). Our legislature has defined the nature of parental duties: Fathers and mothers are joint natural guardians of their ......
-
Com. v. Chase
...L. c. 273, § 11. General Laws c. 273, § 11, had made the begetting of an illegitimate child a misdemeanor. See Commonwealth v. Dornes, 239 Mass. 592, 594, 132 N.E. 363 (1921). But, as this and the related cases we decide this day make clear, the legislative scheme still remains unclear, at ......
-
Com. v. MacKenzie
...the practice of the Uniform Desertion Act . . . (see now G.L. c. 273, §§ 1--10), so far as it is applicable.' Commonwealth v. Dornes, 239 Mass. 592, 594, 132 N.E. 363, 364 (1921). See G.L. c. 273, § The Commonwealth argues that in practice § 11 is used only (a) to determine the paternity of......