Edwards v. Martin
| Decision Date | 18 January 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-2029,5-2029 |
| Citation | 231 Ark. 528,331 S.W.2d 97 |
| Parties | Mrs. Graydon EDWARDS, Appellant, v. Mrs. Larkin MARTIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Paul K. Roberts, Warren, for appellant.
L. B. Smead, Camden, for appellee.
This is a contest between appellant, the mother, and appellee, the grandmother, over the custody of a minor child. From an order awarding its care and custody to the grandmother comes this appeal. The record reflects that in 1948 appellant (then Ernestine Martin) married Bob Foord and the child in question, Richard James Foord, was born to them February 19, 1952. While bringing his wife and child to Camden, Arkansas from Indiana on October 22, 1952, Foord's automobile struck the abutment of a bridge over the St. Francis River and he was killed, and the appellant and child were severely injured. Appellant was confined in a hospital for many weeks due to shock and injuries resulting in an operation of major abdominal surgery. After leaving the hospital, appellant went to the home of her parents to convalesce and appellee (her mother) was appointed guardian of appellant.
March 20, 1956 Ruby Mae Foord, the child's aunt, filed a petition in the Probate Court of Ouachita County praying that she be appointed guardian of the child, and without any notice of the hearing of the petition being furnished appellant, Ruby Mae Foord was appointed guardian on March 30, 1956. September 20, 1957 appellant married Graydon Edwards of Irwin, Ohio and they established a home there. September 16, 1958 appellant filed a motion in the Probate Court of Ouachita County to quash the order of March 30, 1956 wherein Ruby Mae Foord was appointed guardian, and on October 10, 1958 the probate court quashed the previous order appointing Ruby Mae Foord guardian, and ordered that the child remain in the custody of appellee, its grandmother. On October 23, 1958, appellee filed her petition in the Probate Court of Ouachita County praying that she be appointed guardian of the child. Appellant resisted appellee's prayer to be appointed guardian of the child and asked the court to grant to her, appellant, permanent custody of the child. After hearing rather voluminous testimony, the probate court entered its order granting custody of the child to appellee, its grandmother, and denying appellant's request for custody. It thus appears that all of the above proceedings were had in probate which has the power and authority to appoint guardians, but it is without power or authority to determine a contest over the care and custody of a minor without invading the jurisdiction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poe v. Case
...grandmother which arose in a guardianship proceeding was void because it was beyond the power and authority of the court. Edwards v. Martin, 231 Ark. 528, 331 S.W.2d 97. The action here was void for the same reason. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the court has, for all practical purposes,......
-
Swindle v. Bradley
...and for the best interests of the children, the Chancery Court is vested with full authority to revise its orders.' In Edwards v. Martin, 231 Ark. 528, 331 S.W.2d 97, we quoted from the earlier case of Myrick v. Jacks, 33 Ark. "The general jurisdiction over the persons and property of minor......
-
Adoption of Parsons, Matter of, 90-11
...This holding overlooks the fact that probate courts are without power or authority to determine custody matters. Edwards v. Martin, 231 Ark. 528, 331 S.W.2d 97 (1960). I respectfully DUDLEY, J. joins. 1 Appellees state in their brief that the "ten day notice provision" must be included in "......
-
Robins v. Arkansas Social Services, 80-318
...court. Lee v. Grubbs, 269 Ark. 205, 599 S.W.2d 715 (1980) holds the same is true even if the child is illegitimate. Edwards v. Martin, 231 Ark. 528, 331 S.W.2d 97 (1960) distinctly sets out that the probate court has no jurisdiction to hear a contest for the custody of a child, that power b......