Hurley v. St. Martin
| Decision Date | 29 June 1933 |
| Parties | HURLEY v. ST. MARTIN et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Probate Court, Bristol County; Mayhew R. Hitch, Judge.
Proceeding on the petition of Catherine L. Hurley, opposed by William J. St. Martin and another, for leave to appeal from a decree of a Probate Court whereby respondents were made parents by adoption of a child of petitioner. From an interlocutory decree confirming the report of a master to whom the case had been referred, and from a final decree denying the petition, petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
James H. Kenney, of Boston, for appellant.
William A. Bellamy, of Taunton, for appellees.
This is a petition praying for leave to appeal from a decree of a probate court, whereby the respondents were made parents by adoption of a natural child of the petitioner. The case was referred to a master under an order, in the usual form, to hear the parties and their evidence, to find the facts and make report. The evidence is not reported.
The familiar practice in these conditions is that the findings of the master must be accepted as true, since they are not inconsistent with each other, or plainly wrong in view of incontrovertible facts.
The essential facts thus displayed are that the petitioner, a single woman and resident of Boston, gave birth to a female child on December 16, 1918, at St. Mary's Infant Asylum and Lying-in Hospital, an unincorporated charitable institution hereafter called St. Mary's Asylum. The petitioneron August 3, 1920, signed an instrument entitled ‘Agreement for Adoption,’ whereby she surrendered her child to St. Mary's Asylum for the purpose of enabling it to procure a suitable home and adoption for the child, and agreeing not to attempt to discover her home, or to remove her, or to molest the family. This instrument was witnessed by the mother of the petitioner. Although the petitioner testified that she did not read or know the substance and effect of this instrument, the master found that she was an intelligent person and fully understood and appreciated its words and nature, and signed it intending to authorize St. Mary's Asylum to consent to any adoption of the child approved by it. No misrepresentation or concealment was practised on her by any officer or person in behalf of St. Mary's Asylum touching the instrument or the subsequent proceedings in Maine concerning the child. The master received in evidence, subject to exception by the petitioner, an authenticated copy of a record of a probate court of Maine reciting a decree of adoption of the child on January 11, 1921, by Frank N. and Grace F. Rancourt, husband and wife. It was recited in their petition for adoption that the residence of the mother of the child was unknown and could not be ascertained, and there was attached to their petition copy of the instrument of August 3, 1920, signed by the mother of the child (the present petitioner), entitled ‘Agreement for Adoption.’ The St. Mary's Asylum consented to this adoption. Thereafter the adopting mother died. The petitioner did not know in fact and had no actual notice of the Maine adoption prior to the service of the citation on the petition for adoption in this Commonwealth by the respondents. On October 24, 1925, the respondents petitioned the probate court for Bristol county for adoption of the child of the petitioner. Decree of adoption was entered reciting the surrender of the child by her mother, the present petitioner, to the St. Mary's Asylum for adoption, notice to that institution and assent in writing by Frank N. Rancourt, surviving adopting parent of the child, and hearing. The petition was opposed by counsel representing the St. Mary's Asylum, but decree of adoption pursuant to the petition was granted on December 31, 1925. Appeals taken from that decree were subsequently dismissed and the decree was affirmed. In October, 1925, one Hayes, for many years an agent for the St. Mary's Asylum, acting under a decree of a probate court for another county appointing him guardian with custody of the child, took her from school in Taunton and placed her in an orphan asylum where she remained until May, 1926, when by virtue of habeas corpus proceedings she was returned to the respondents. During the pendency of the adoption...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Surrender of Minor Children, In re
...254, 258, 124 N.E.2d 266; Adoption of a Minor, 338 Mass. 635, 642, 156 N.E.2d 801. See Dumain v. Gwynne, 10 Allen, 270; Hurley v. St. Martin, 283 Mass. 415, 186 N.E. 596; 28 U. of Chicago L.Rev. 564, 571. The judge in granting or withholding assent is to 'be guided by the established princi......
-
MacDonald v. MacDonald
... ... them. Cases like Radovsky v. Wexler, 273 Mass. 254, ... 173 N.E. 409, and Hurley v. St. Martin, 283 Mass ... 415, 186 N.E. 596, are not at variance. It is enough to say ... that no reason is perceived for reversing the action ... ...
-
Acedo v. State Dept. of Public Welfare, 1
...relieved of the consequences of his acts which were in compliance with the applicable adoption statutes. See also, Hurley v. St. Martin, 283 Mass. 415, 186 N.E. 596 (1933). We think the policy considerations stated by the Nevada Supreme Court in Welfare Division of the Department of Health ......
-
Catholic Charities of Diocese of Galveston v. Harper
...to make a material distinction in the effect of our statute. See also In re Magee, 74 S.D. 286, 52 N.W.2d 99; Hurley v. St. Martin, 283 Mass. 415, 186 N.E. 596; People ex rel. Miller v. Butts, Sup., 99 N.Y.S.2d The Legislature has wisely safeguarded the interests and welfare of children sub......