Ex parte Sidle

• Decision Date: 04 October 1915
• Citation: 154 N.W. 277,31 N.D. 405
• Parties: Ex parte SIDLE.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

31 N.D. 405

154 N.W. 277

Ex parte SIDLE.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Oct. 4, 1915.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where habeas corpus is brought by the natural parents of an infant for its custody and control, and it is shown that the child has for a period of almost eight years been left among strangers and its paternity and identity concealed, the polestar and main considerations of the court will be the best interests of such child, and where these interests point, as they are held to point in the case under consideration, to the continued custody of the adoptive parents, the court will not interfere with such control and possession, even though the adoption may have been made without the actual knowledge of the natural parents and under the belief and on the grounds of their decease.

In determining the question of the right to the possession of an infant as between its natural and its adoptive parents and the real interests of the child in such a matter, the relative poverty of the former does not alone, save in extreme cases, furnish a sufficient reason for depriving them of their offspring.

In determining the right to the possession of a child in habeas corpus and the best interests thereof as between the natural and the adoptive parents, the court will take into consideration the right of such child to the love, care, and guidance of a father as well as of a mother and the heartlessness and lack of interest of the natural father. It will also take into consideration the wishes of the infant, when the latter is old enough and of sufficient intelligence to reasonably understand the situation in which it is placed.

In determining the right to the control and possession of an infant in habeas corpus, the court will take into consideration the fact that the child is but the future citizen, and that paramount to the interests of the claimants and even of the natural parents are the interests of the parent state.

Habeas Corpus by W. J. Sidle to determine the right to the custody of Herbert Clark, an infant. Writ quashed.

This is a proceeding upon a writ of habeas corpus to determine the right to the custody of Herbert Clark, an infant; the controversy being between the natural parents and the parents by adoption of the child, who is now some eight years of age.

The testimony shows that W. J. Sidle and Elsie Edwards (Sidle) were married in the city of Maquoketa, Iowa, on the 28th day of February, 1907, and soon after their marriage removed to Mandan, N. D.; that about six months after their marriage the child was born; that the father, W. J. Sidle, from false pride and for fear of the anger of his parents, and on account of his lack of interest in the child and desire to get rid of it, persuaded his wife, who really appears, during all of the times in controversy, to have been persuaded against her will and against her real instincts, to go to St. Paul, Minn., that the child might be born there, and its birth concealed both from his family and from any friends or acquaintances that they might have in Mandan or the city of Bismarck, where they seem to have been living at the time. Mr. Sidle did not accompany his wife to St. Paul, nor was he present in that city at the time of the birth. Mrs. Sidle was accompanied, however, by a nurse, a Miss Wendell, who seems throughout to have been actuated by a strange, but undoubted, loyalty to Mrs. Sidle, and later by an unquestionable affection for the child itself, and so much so that it subjected her to the suspicion, which we find to be unfounded, that she herself was the mother of the infant. On arriving at St. Paul Mrs. Sidle was taken to a private hospital belonging to a Mrs. White, where the child was born, and where she remained for about two weeks. At the end of that time the father, W. J. Sidle, came to the city and persuaded his wife to allow the nurse to take the child with her to Iowa so that its birth might be concealed, at any rate until after the period of nine months had elapsed from the time of the marriage. There can be no question that at this time the husband promised his wife that the child would be returned to her the following spring. One of the arguments by which her consent was gained was that the family would remove to the coast and to entirely new surroundings, and that by these means the age of the child and the real date of its birth could be concealed. For the next two years the baby boy was cared for by the nurse, or, more strictly speaking, his care was provided for. He was first taken to a hospital in Iowa City, Iowa, where he remained for about two weeks. He was then taken to another hospital at Maquoketa, Iowa, where he remained for eleven or twelve weeks. He was then taken to the house of the nurse, Miss Wendell, which at the time was rented by her to her sister, a Mrs. Reynolds, and the child seems to have been jointly cared for there by the nurse and this sister. Soon thereafter the sister seems to have become so attached to the infant that she contemplated its adoption, and the nurse, fearing complications, took him from her and back to his parents at Mandan, where he stayed for two or three weeks. After this time he was again given by his parents to the nurse and put by her into the custody of still another trained nurse, a Miss Waterbury. Soon thereafter, however, Miss Wendell was compelled to take her blind brother to London, England, to consult a specialist, and on Miss Waterbury declining to take the responsibility for the child in the interim, at the last moment, and with the consent of the parents, took the child to London with her. After being absent for some six weeks, the nurse and child returned to America and upon their return the former learned that her sister, Mrs. Reynolds, and her husband, immediately after the taking of the child from them, which had been done covertly, had procured articles for its adoption, it appearing that in their petition for the same they had alleged to the mayor of Maquoketa that the child was either an abandoned child or that its parents were dead, and it also appearing that these representations were justified by the statements of the nurse herself, who through all of the years in controversy seems to have stated to all inquirers that the parents of the child were both dead. Miss Wendell then took the child to Kansas City where it was cared for for a period of six or seven months in the home of a Mrs. Berry, and from which place he was taken to the home of two maiden ladies in Chicago, where he was left for some time, and then taken to the home of two other young ladies, and left there for a period of several weeks. From there he was taken to a Mrs. Palmer at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and there evidently lovingly cared for for eight months. From there, and in 1911, he was again surreptitiously taken by the nurse to Massachusetts and given a home in the house of a Mrs. Roffer; the justification for this removal, as appears to have been the justification in some of the other instances, being that Mrs. Palmer was becoming too attached to the boy and the boy too attached to her. Mrs. Roffer seems to have been one of those motherly women whom Providence has scattered all over the land, and seems to have taken every care of the child which she could under her limited circumstances. He remained with her nearly a year. From Mrs. Roffer's home the boy was again brought back to Chicago, at which place, though only five years of age, he was tagged and ticketed in care of the conductor and porter to Mrs. Palmer in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The testimony shows that when he arrived it was at night, and was met at the train by Mrs. Palmer, he tearfully insisted that no one should take him from her again. From this time on Mrs. Palmer seems to have lovingly cared for the boy and to have insisted on knowing something of his antecedents and to have urged his adoption by someone. Miss Wendell, however, insisted for a time at least that he could not be adopted, and gave Mrs. Palmer to infer that she herself could take care of him. It appears also that during the child's first visit to Mrs. Palmer's he had been taken for a short visit to his parents, and on his return had been left with a Mrs. Stuhr for a short time, because he remembered them and their names, and it was thought best not to return him to Mrs. Palmer until he had ceased talking about them. During all of these years the nurse had furnished some money for the support of the child. Some of it, we have no doubt, was furnished by the parents. There is testimony that they paid, in all, about $2,500. The evidence, as a whole, hardly justifies this conclusion. We are satisfied that the parents paid some money. We are satisfied, however, that at times at least the proper clothing, if not the care of the child, was dependent upon the kindness of those with whom he was left (and that, even if Mrs. Palmer was, before the taking by the Clarks, which we will later refer to, paid anything for the custody of the child, she for a long time received nothing, and relied merely upon the promise that some money would be forthcoming if a nurses' association, and possibly an uncle, who, it was contended, were interested in the child, could furnish the same). About the 12th of November, 1912, the respondent, Charles F. Clark, was told by Mrs. Palmer that she had a little child with her, and at about this time Mrs. Clark was asked by Mrs. Palmer to care for the child while she was away visiting her daughter, who was about to be confined. Mrs. Clark consented. Mrs. Palmer stayed about three weeks. When she returned she brought her daughter's infant child with her, and on account of the fact that the child Herbert Clark seems to have had or was threatened with the whooping cough and the unwillingness of Mrs. Palmer to subject her daughter's infant to the contagion, the child Herbert was left with the Clarks for an indefinite time. This arrangement was readily...