Hartwig v. Hartwig
| Decision Date | 07 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 23015,23015 |
| Citation | 333 S.W.2d 101 |
| Parties | In re Adoption of Rita Jean HARTWIG et al., Appellants, v. Franklin Lee HARTWIG, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Louis Wagner, Kansas City, for appellants.
Gladys J. Miniace, John C. Pohlmann, Kansas City, for respondent.
SPERRY, Commissioner.
Geneva Stroud, the maternal grandmother of Rita Jean Hartwig, an infant, and her husband, Ivan H. Stroud, filed petition seeking to adopt the infant. They will be referred to as plaintiffs. Franklin Lee Hartwig, defendant, is the father of the infant, and opposed the granting of the adoption. From a judgment dismissing the petition plaintiffs prosecute this appeal.
Plaintiffs, among other things, alleged that Rita Jean Hartwig was born December 4, 1956; that her mother was Jeanette Hartwig, deceased, the wife of defendant and daughter of plaintiff, Geneva Stroud; that Jeanette died January 28, 1958; that the child, at that time and for a long time prior thereto, had been in their care and custody; that defendant, for a period of at least one year prior to the date of the filing of the petition, had willfully abandoned and willfully neglected to provide Rita Jean with proper care and maintenance; and that plaintiffs are suitable and proper persons to become the parents of the child.
Defendant answered, denying that the child had ever been in the care and custody of plaintiffs prior to the death of the mother, January 28, 1958, or that he had ever willfully abandoned the child or failed to provide her with proper care and maintenance.
The case was, of course, tried to the Court, where the testimony of some thirteen witnesses, including that of all of the parties, was heard. The Court found that: There was no substantial evidence tending to prove that plaintiffs had had the actual, lawful care and custody of the child for a period of at least nine months prior thereto, as required by Section 453.080 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.; there was not substantial evidence tending to prove that defendant had willfully abandoned the child or had willfully neglected to provide her with proper care and maintenance.
These findings are fully supported by the testimony of both plaintiffs. Both stated that the child lived with her parents, in a home occupied by them, until January 28, 1958, when the mother was killed in an accident; that upon the birth of the child the mother brought her to plaintiff's home, from the hospital, for three weeks and then they went...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adoption of P. J. K., In re, 8065
...226 Mo.App. 340, 41 S.W.2d 627; Slaughter and Hyman, supra, note 3. For cases in which willful neglect was not shown, see Hartwig v. Hartwig, Mo.App., 333 S.W.2d 101; Thompson v. Arnold, 208 Mo.App. 102, 230 S.W. 322; Watson and Perkins, supra, note 3.7 Rule 73.01; Section 510.310(4); In re......
-
K. W. S., In re
...It is true that ordinarily the written consent of both natural parents to an adoption is required. Section 453.030(3); Hartwig v. Hartwig, Mo.App., 333 S.W.2d 101; In re Slaughter, Mo.App., 290 S.W.2d 408. But Section 453.040 (Laws 1959, H.B. 438, Sec. 1) provides that, 'The consent of the ......
-
Adoption of K, In re
...In re Adoption of J., Mo.App., 396 S.W.2d 257, 261(1); In re Adoption of J.M.K., supra, 363 S.W.2d at 74--75(8); Hartwig v. Hartwig, Mo.App., 333 S.W.2d 101, 102(2); In re Slaughter, Mo.App., 290 S.W.2d 408, 411--412(5).9 The following testimony by the grandmother appears of record in the f......
-
Novak, In re, 59141
...of adoption, gave to the Juvenile Court the authority to make an order transferring the custody of a child. * * *' In Hartwig v. Hartwig, 333 S.W.2d 101, 102 (Mo.App.1960), a child's grandparents sought to adopt an infant whose father was her sole surviving parent. The court recognized that......