In re Mendevil, Civil 1796

• Decision Date: 03 November 1920
• Docket Number: Civil 1796
• Citation: 193 P. 17,21 Ariz. 586
• Parties: In the Matter of VIOLET MENDEVIL. v. FRANK RAMSEY and MRS. FRANK RAMSEY, Appellees M. SIBERT and MARY SIBERT, Appellants,
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

193 P. 17

21 Ariz. 586

In the Matter of VIOLET MENDEVIL.

M. SIBERT and MARY SIBERT, Appellants, v. FRANK RAMSEY and MRS. FRANK RAMSEY, Appellees

Civil No. 1796

Supreme Court of Arizona

November 3, 1920

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. O. J. Baughn, Judge. Affirmed.

Mr Thomas J. Croaff, for Appellants.

Mr. G W. Silverthorn, for Appellees.

OPINION

ROSS, J.

April 12, 1919, appellants, M. Sibert and Mary Sibert, filed their petition in the superior court of Maricopa county, invoking its juvenile court jurisdiction to order the appellees to turn over to them, for their care and guardianship, the possession of Violet Mendevil, alleging as grounds therefor that they were the grandparents of the said Violet Mendevil, who was about four years old; that her mother, who was their daughter, shortly after Violet's birth, made arrangement with them to take and raise her as a member of their family and household, and, in pursuance to such arrangement, that they had given her such consideration sustenance, care, love and affection as their position in life made it possible from shortly after her birth until about June 1, 1917; that on the last-mentioned date appellant, Mary Sibert, became confined to her bed by a serious illness of such a nature as to incapacitate her to care for Violet and to render her recovery doubtful, and by reason thereof appellant, M. Sibert, delivered said child into the possession and care of the court until such time as the grandmother (Mary Sibert) should recover, or, should she die, the court, with his aid, was to seek for said Violet Mendevil a suitable home; that later, without the consent of appellants, she was placed by the court in the care and custody of appellees. The recovery of the grandmother is alleged, as also requests upon the court and appellees for the return of Violet to them; it is also alleged that the mother and grandparents are religious believers in the Catholic faith, and that Violet was christened and baptized in such faith; that appellees are not of the Catholic faith that appellants are well qualified and able to care for said Violet as prudent parents.

November 6, 1919, a hearing was had upon said petition, at which appellants and appellees were personally present and represented by counsel. From the evidence introduced, it appears that appellant, M. Sibert, on June 6, 1917, filed in the superior court of Maricopa county his verified petition, charging that Violet Mendevil was a dependent and neglected child two and one-half years old, and needed the care and protection of the court; that her mother had deserted her having gone to the state of New York, and that the whereabouts of her father were unknown. The child was thereupon, by direction of the superior court, acting as a juvenile court, temporarily turned over to the Florence Crittenden Home of Phoenix, an institution devoted to the caring for dependent and neglected children.

July 17, 1917, "after full hearing and due deliberation," the juvenile court found Violet Mendevil to be a neglected and dependent child, and that her own good and the best interests of the state require that she be committed to the care and custody of Mr. and Mrs. Frank Ramsey, the appellees, and entered a decree that she be so committed "until otherwise ordered, and that said Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey are willing to take said child and abide by such orders as this court may see fit to make in the premises."

Evidence was also heard tending to prove the allegations of the petition. The court entered an order dismissing the petition, and the petitioners prosecute this appeal.

The grounds upon which the court dismissed the petition are not stated, and we do not know whether he based his ruling upon the merits, or upon a want of jurisdiction to pass upon the question as presented, but, whichever it was, we are satisfied the judgment was correct and should be affirmed.

If the juvenile court had jurisdiction to make the order of July 17 1917, placing Violet Mendevil in the care and custody of the appellees, the order then made was final as to all parties to that proceeding. There is no suggestion, in the petition or otherwise, of a lack of jurisdiction to make such order, unless it be found in the allegation that the order was made without the appellants' consent. Appellant, M. Sibert, started in motion the machinery that ultimately determined that Violet Mendevil was destitute, homeless, abandoned and dependent upon the public for support, and was without proper parental care. It was he who filed his verified petition to that effect, and the record shows he did it with the knowledge and consent of the other appellant. He left the child with the court without informing the court or its...