In re Webb's Adoption

Decision Date27 January 1947
Docket Number4830
Citation65 Ariz. 176,177 P.2d 222
PartiesIn re WEBB'S ADOPTION. v. WEBB et ux PERKINS
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Appeal from Superior Court, Yavapai County; J. W. Faulkner, Judge.

Proceeding in the matter of the adoption of Charles Malcolm Webb, Jr., a minor, wherein Charles Y. Webb and Lucille Webb, his wife paternal grandparents of the minor, sought to adopt the minor. From an interlocutory order of adoption in favor of the grandparents, Bonnie Lou Perkins, the minor's mother appeals.

Order set aside.

Moore Romley & Roca, of Phoenix, for appellant.

Head &amp Palmer, of Prescott, for appellee.

Udall, Judge. Stanford, C. J., and La Prade, J., concur.

OPINION

Udall, Judge.

This is an appeal by a mother from an interlocutory order of adoption entered March 19, 1945, granting the petition of the paternal grandparents for the adoption of her minor son, aged six years. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the parents of the minor involved were married in 1937, the appellant (mother) being at that time 14 years of age and her husband 19. Before she was 16 the child was born in Yavapai County where the matrimonial domicile was maintained. Six months thereafter the husband filed suit for divorce and a decree was entered in his favor on July 3, 1939, which also gave him the custody of the minor with full visitorial rights to the mother. He promptly placed the child with his parents, the petitioners herein, who at all times resided in Clarkdale, Yavapai County. Then he moved to California and re-married. His legal residence, according to the petition to adopt, had been in California for a year prior to the filing of the present petition. The appellant on July 31, 1939, married her present husband, Lincoln W. Perkins, in New Mexico; however, they returned to Globe to live, her husband having resided there for many years. He was employed by the Arizona Edison Company and was well respected in the community.

There have been two separate proceedings initiated in the Yavapai County Superior Court by the petitioners seeking to adopt their grandson, Charles Malcolm Webb, Jr. Resident Judge, Honorable Richard Lamson, handled the first petition in which an interlocutory order of adoption was entered on September 22, 1939. The appellant moved to vacate this interlocutory order and after a hearing thereon, the court on July 25, 1940, entered this order:

"It is ordered that the Motion to Vacate Interlocutory Order of Adoption be granted, the interlocutory proceedings dismissed and the minor child awarded to the mother."

This order effectively terminated this adoption proceeding.

At the same time, according to the record before us, the court not only set aside the former interlocutory order but also modified the divorce decree, which awarded the custody to the father, and gave the custody to the appellant. The child was promptly taken by Mr. and Mrs. Perkins to their home in Globe, Gila County, to live, where he remained for over fourteen months.

On October 2, 1941, Sam J. Head, designating himself as attorney for Charles M. Webb, the natural father of said minor, in the closed adoption proceedings made a "motion for an order to modify order ex parte." A supporting affidavit recited on information and belief that the mother had deserted and abandoned the child. Judge Lamson thereupon entered an ex parte order directing his juvenile officer to go to Globe and get the child and return him into the custody of the petitioners at Clarkdale. The return on the order shows that the officer carried out his instructions, having obtained custody of the child from the step-father, Lincoln W. Perkins, the appellant at that time being temporarily in California.

The second petition for leave to adopt was filed by the same petitioners on November 19, 1941. The Yavapai County Clerk of Court gave it the same docket number as the previous petition. The matter was assigned to the Honorable J. W. Faulkner, Judge of the Superior Court of Mohave County, who handled all subsequent proceedings. The first hearing was held on January 3, 1942, at the conclusion of which, by stipulation, the hearing was continued for a period of three years, "the purpose being to give the mother (appellant) an opportunity to show her fitness to have the care of the child." In the interim the child was left in the custody of the petitioners. At the adjourned hearing on January 3, 1945, additional testimony was taken and at the conclusion of the hearing the matter was taken under advisement. On March 14, 1945, the trial court made extensive findings of fact and concluded that the best interest of the child would be promoted by his adoption by the petitioners. There followed the interlocutory order of adoption from which this appeal was taken.

While the father gave his written consent, at no time did the mother consent to the adoption. The court expressly found that the evidence at the last hearing showed no misconduct on her part during the previous three-year period, however, the court did make findings of serious misconduct and acts showing instability on the appellant's part prior to the year 1942.

The assignments of error raise two serious jurisdictional questions: (1) Did the child "reside" in Yavapai County at the time the last petition for adoption was filed so as to confer jurisdiction upon that court to hear the matter? (2) Is the superior court without jurisdiction to decree an adoption without the mother's consent in the absence of allegations and proof of conditions specified by statute as obviating consent? A statement of some basic principles will be helpful...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Fox' Guardianship, In re
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 27 Noviembre 1957
    ...188 S.C. 443, 199 S.E. 677. The same rule was applied in the following cases construing statutes relating to adoption: In re Webb's Adoption, 65 Ariz. 176, 177 P.2d 222; and Johnson v. Smith, 94 Ind.App. 619, 180 N.E. We believe the weight of authority and better reasoning support the rule ......
  • Allman v. Register
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 2 Mayo 1951
    ...122 S.E. 308]; In re Reynolds, 206 N.C. 276, 173 S.E. 789; Duke v. Johnston, supra; In re Blalock, N.C., 64 S.E.2d 848; In re Webb's Adoption, 65 Ariz. 176, 177 P.2d 222. There is no contention here that the plaintiff, who is the legal custodian of her children, under the Virginia decree, h......
  • Johnson v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 19 Diciembre 1969
    ...is that of the parent to whose custody it has been legally given; * * *' Restatement of Conflicts, section 32. See also In re Webb's Adoption, 65 Ariz. 176, 177 P.2d 222. While the father contends that the California attorney who purportedly represented him at this last hearing did so witho......
  • Tencza v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 10 Mayo 1974
    ...sufficient to support a finding of emancipation. The residence of an unemancipated minor is that of his parents. In re Webb's Adoption, 65 Ariz. 176, 177 P.2d [21 Ariz.App. 556] 222 (1947); Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 248 La. 246, 178 So.2d 238 In Taylor, the facts were ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT