In re Van Walters
| Decision Date | 15 November 1892 |
| Docket Number | 16,625 |
| Citation | 32 N.E. 568,132 Ind. 567 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Van Walters et al. v. The Board of Children's Guardians of Marion County |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Marion Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
J. B Julian and J. F. Julian, for appellants.
C. L Hare, for appellee.
The petitioners in the court below, Georgia Wilkins and John D Wilkins, are here the appellants. The material allegations of their complaint are these: That the appellant Georgia Wilkins is the mother of Mary Van Walters, William F. Van Walters, and Clara Van Walters; that she married her co-appellant on the 17th day of August, 1891; that the eldest of the three children was born on the 31st day of August, 1879, and the youngest on the 12th day of February, 1887; that on the 11th day of July, 1891, the children, by a decree of court, were committed to the custody of the appellee; that neither of the children was "at any time abandoned, neglected or cruelly treated, nor were they of vicious habits, nor were their surroundings of such a character as to lead to their demoralization;" that the petitioner, Georgia Wilkins, was so distracted in mind, so crazed with grief over her children being taken from her, that she was at the time incapable of comprehending or doing anything; "that the petitioners are able and willing to take care of the children, and to make reasonable provision for their physical comfort and welfare, and that they are able and willing to see that the children "go to school and receive a good education." The petition prays that the decree be set aside or that it be so modified as to give them custody of the children for a time specified to enable them to convince the court that they are competent to take care of the children.
It has been for many centuries theoretically true that the State, through its appropriate organs, is the guardian of the children within its borders. The constitution of a State is always presumed to be framed by organized society governed by settled principles. State, ex rel., v. Noble, 118 Ind. 350, 21 N.E. 244 (361); Johnston v. State, ex rel., 128 Ind. 16, 27 N.E. 422 (18), and authorities cited.
It is therefore, proper to assume that our constitutions, and our laws enacted under it, sanction and confirm the great principle of the sovereign's guardianship of the children within the dominions of the sovereign. But while it is true that this great principle is thus sanctioned and confirmed, it is still true that the equally great principle that natural rights vest in parents the custody and control of their children is confirmed and enforced. This high and strong natural right yields only when the welfare of society or of the children themselves comes into conflict with it; but where there is such conflict the supreme right of guardianship asserts itself for the protection of society and the promotion of the welfare of the wards of the commonwealth. It is unnecessary to define the boundaries or prescribe the limits of the power of the State to take children from the custody of parents who will lead them into evil paths or surround them with vicious influences and place them in the custody of those who will train and educate them for good lives and make them useful members of society, for our statute is far within the limits of the great power of inherent State guardianship. The statute, which provides that children may be taken from the custody of parents whose course of life or whose evil conduct unfits them to rear children so that they will become good and useful citizens, was enacted pursuant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Sharp
... ... the path of immorality and crime. (1 Bailey on Jurisdiction, ... sec. 373; Farnham v. Pierce, 141 Mass. 203, 55 Am ... Rep. 452, 6 N.E. 830; Milwaukee Industrial School v ... Milwaukee Supervisors, 40 Wis. 328, 22 Am. Rep. 702; ... Van Walters v. Board, 132 Ind. 567, 32 N.E. 568, 18 ... L. R. A. 431; McFall v. Simmons, Judge, 12 S.D. 562, 81 N.W ... Counsel ... complain that the legislature did not follow the law of Utah ... and Colorado and other states in creating special juvenile ... courts having jurisdiction over ... ...
-
Ex parte Januszewski
... ... elevating influences and training it in all that counts for ... good citizenship and usefulness as a member of society. Under ... it, the state, which, through its appropriate organs, is the ... guardian of the children within its borders (Van Walters ... v. Board, 132 Ind. 569, 32 N.E. 568, 18 L.R.A. 431), ... assumes the custody of the child, imposes wholesome ... restraints, and performs parental duties, and at a time when ... the child is not entitled, either by the laws of nature or of ... the state, to absolute freedom, but is ... ...
-
Peese v. Gellerman
...asserts itself for the protection of society and the promotion of the welfare of the wards of the state. Van Walters v. Board of Guardians, 132 Ind. 567, 32 N. E. 568, 18 L. R. A. 431. In view of these principles, it seems to me that the question to be determined is, does the evidence in th......
-
Glansman v. Ledbetter
...rights courts will be slow to disregard, unless impelled to do so for the best interests of the child. In re Van Walters v. Board, 132 Ind. 567, 569, 32 N. E. 568, 18 L. R. A. 431; Church, Habeas Corpus (2d Ed.) § 454. [6] To the petition for the child's adoption the mother was entitled to ......
-
Why (jury-less) Juvenile Courts Are Unconstitutional
...196 F. 123 (C.C.S.D. Ohio 1911); People ex rel. O'Connell v. Turner, 55 Ill. 280, 281 (1870); Van Walters v. Bd. of Children's Guardians, 132 Ind. 567 (1892); State ex rel. Olson v. Brown, 50 Minn. 353 (1892); Prescott v. Ohio, 19 Ohio 184 (1869); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 213 Pa. 48 (1905); ......