In re Watson's Adoption
| Decision Date | 18 June 1946 |
| Citation | 195 S.W.2d 331,238 Mo.App. 1104 |
| Parties | In re Adoption of Jo Ann Watson, a Minor. Gus Watson and Georgianna Watson, his wife, Petitioners, Appellants, v. Loraine Watson, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court of the County of Pike; Hon. Theodore C. Bruere, Judge.
Affirmed.
F D. Wilkins for appellants.
(1) In this proceeding and all others of like character "the child's welfare" should be the chief consideration in determining who shall have its final custody. Secs. 9609 9613, R. S. 1939; Drake v. Drake, 43 S.W.2d 556 559, 328 Mo. 966, 972; In re Hickman, 170 S.W.2d 695, 697; In re Snow's Adoption, 41 S.W.2d 627, 226 Mo.App. 350; In re McFarland, 12 S.W.2d 523, 223 Mo.App. 826. (2) While the rights of the natural parents are superior over others, yet the welfare of the child is superior to the claims of the parent. In re Snow's Adoption, 51 S.W.2d 627, 628, 226 Mo.App. 340, 341; Thompson et al. v. Arnold et al., 230 S.W. 322, 324, 208 Mo.App. 102, 106. (3) Respondent, by wilfully abandoning this child and neglecting to provide maintenance for her for a period of more than two years before the institution of this suit and by her own misconduct, forfeited her rights to have the final custody of this child. Sec. 9609, R. S. 1939; In re Snow's Adoption, 41 S.W.2d 627, 226 Mo.App. 340, 341; In re McAvoy's Adoption, 173 S.W.2d 109, 112; In re Perkins, 117 S.W.2d 686, 692, 234 Mo.App. 716. (4) The court abused its discretion in denying the petition for adoption. In re McFarland, 12 S.W.2d 523, 526. (5) There is a lack of substantial evidence in this record that it would be for the best interest of the child to permit the parent (respondent) to have its custody. In re Snow's Adoption, 41 S.W.2d 627, 628, 226 Mo.App. 340, 341, and cases cited under point (1).
May & May for respondent.
(1) While the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child, a parent is entitled to the custody of his child, unless it is made to appear that the best interest of the child demands he should be deprived of such custody. Ex parte Smith, 200 S.W. 683. (2) The mere fact that adoptive parents are better off financially than the natural parents ought not to be regarded as a controlling circumstance, otherwise poor parents might be denied the rearing of their children. Orey et al. v. Moller et al., 142 Mo.App. 579. (3) The adoption statute should be liberally construed with a view to promoting the best interests of the child, but the liberal construction should not be extended to permit determination of the question when the natural parents may be divested of their rights to the end that all legal relationship between them and their child shall cease. In re Perkins, 117 S.W.2d 686. (4) It is court's duty to award custody of minor child to natural parent, unless such parent is manifestly unfit or incompetent, or child's welfare, or some special or extraordinary reason, demands different disposition. Armstrong v. Price, 292 S.W. 447; Edwards v. Edwards, 84 Mo.App. 552; Madigan v. Madigan, 260 S.W. 485; State v. Ellison, 271 Mo. 416; In re Ingenbohs, 173 Mo.App. 261; In re Bernice S. Scarritt, 76 Mo. 565, 582. (5) Where minor child would receive tender parental care either in the natural parent's home or that of persons already caring for the child, natural parent has superior right to child's custody. Armstrong v. Price, 292 S.W. 447; In re Penny, 194 Mo.App. 698. (6) Consent of parent was required. Sec. 9609, R. S. Mo. 1939.
In this action Gus Watson and his wife Georgianna filed a petition in the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court of Pike County to adopt Jo Ann Watson, then four years of age. The mother of the child, Loraine Watson, opposed the action. From a judgment denying the relief asked, petitioners have appealed.
All the parties to this action are negroes. Jo Ann Watson is the illegitimate daughter of Loraine Watson. Gus Watson is an uncle of Loraine Watson. He and his wife live in Clarksville, Missouri. They are middle-aged and have no children of their own. They are a highly respectable couple, enjoy the confidence and respect of their fellow citizens, and their fitness to rear Jo Ann Watson is unquestioned.
Loraine Watson, the respondent, is unmarried, and the mother of two illegitimate children, Jo Ann Watson, born April 18, 1941, and a little boy, about six years of age. At the time of the hearing below, Loraine Watson was twenty-three years of age, and was making her home and residing in Hannibal, Missouri, with a family named Anderson, and was employed at the International Shoe factory, earning $ 29.50 per week. At the time Jo Ann was born, the mother was living with the Andersons on a farm at Salt River, near Frankford. She was not employed at the time. In September, 1942, the child was turned over to the petitioners. Mrs. Watson testified that just before she took the child, she received a card from Loraine, which read: "Dear Auntie, will you take one of the children and give it a home? . . . I got to a place and I can't support it." Mrs. Watson and her husband then went to the Anderson home, and when they arrived asked Loraine which one of the children she wanted them to take. Loraine replied: "Aunt Georgianna, I would rather for you to take them both." Mrs. Watson felt that she could not take both children, but told Loraine she would take one of them and give it a home, and it was finally decided that she would take the little girl Jo Ann.
Loraine testified that she did not write to Mrs. Watson requesting her to take one of the children, but when Mr. and Mrs. Watson came she told them to take the little girl until she came for her. She testified: "She said she would like to have the little girl, and she begged for the little girl, and I said, 'Well take her and keep her a while.'" Mrs. Anderson, who was present at the time, testified: "Loraine said, 'Take the child and keep her until I call for her.'" The child was then taken to the Watson home in Clarksville. The little boy was given to another aunt of Loraine's.
A few months later, about January 1, 1943, the Andersons moved to Hannibal. Loraine went with them and secured a position in the factory of the International Shoe Company. Her wages, "after Social Security and all is taken out," were $ 25 per week. Out of this she arranged to pay the Andersons $ 5 per week for herself and child. After appellants took the child, respondent went to see the child three times. On her first visit, she stayed two weeks; on the second visit, one week; and on the third visit, three or four days. In April, 1944, she sought to regain custody of her child. Mrs. Watson at first refused; but after Loraine kept begging, she wrote to Loraine consenting to a visit for one week. However, when the latter went for the child, she was not permitted to take her. But, in July, Mrs. Watson wrote a letter to the mother telling her she could have the child for one week. Loraine then went to Clarksville, secured possession of the child, and took her to Hannibal. Loraine testified:
The child was not returned to the Watsons at the end of the week, and after she had been with her mother for four or five weeks, the Watsons went to Hannibal to get her. The Watsons testified that Loraine at the time refused to surrender the child to them, and requested that the child be permitted to stay with her a little longer. The Watsons granted this request, and returned to Clarksville. About a week later the Watsons again went to Hannibal to get the child. This time they appealed to the police. Loraine was brought to the police station, and according to Mrs. Watson's testimony, Loraine stated that she was going to bring the child back, but would like to keep her two weeks longer. The Watsons then again returned to Clarksville without the child.
At the end of the two weeks, the Watsons again went to Hannibal to secure possession of the child. This time they took a lawyer, Mr. Juett, with them. Mrs. Watson testified:
Loraine testified that on this occasion they wanted to take the child
After Loraine's refusal to part with her child, Mrs. Watson took the child by force and carried her off to Clarksville where she has ever since remained.
After her child was taken from her, Loraine reported the matter to the police. The police sent her to the prosecuting attorney. She saw the latter on two occasions, but he did nothing about it. About three weeks later, she enlisted the aid of the Sheriff of Pike County, who went with her to Clarksville. They met Mrs. Watson coming home from work. The Sheriff asked Mrs. Watson where the little girl was, and the latter replied that she was in Eolia. The child was not in Eolia at the time, but at the home of petitioners. When asked why she did not tell the truth at the time, Mrs. Watson said she was scared and did not want them to take the baby. Loraine and the Sheriff, after unsuccessfully...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Menees v. Cowgill
... ... (1) The ... lex domicilii governs and controls the status of an ... individual and the status of adoption validly acquired under ... the law of a state will be recognized and given effect in ... another state. Rauch v. Metz, 212 S.W. 357; ... ...
-
Interest of G, In re, s. 8360
...691.6 Adoption of McKinzie, Mo.App., 275 S.W.2d 365, 372; Adoption of J. M. K., Mo.App., 363 S.W.2d 67, 74; see In re Watson's Adoption, 238 Mo.App. 1104, 195 S.W.2d 331, 336. ...
-
In re E.F.B.D.
...care, his love, and his protection, maintenance, and the opportunity for the display of filial affection." In re Watson's Adoption, 238 Mo. App. 1104, 195 S.W.2d 331, 336 (1946); see In re P.G.M., 149 S.W.3d 507, 514 (Mo. App.2004). This largely presents an issue of intent, which is inferre......
-
In re P.G.M.
...211.447.2(2)(b) and 211.447.4(1)(b) prescribe the same criterion for determining abandonment as § 453.040(7). In re Watson's Adoption, 238 Mo.App. 1104, 195 S.W.2d 331, 336 (1946), established the definition for willful abandonment as either "a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of th......