Jackson v. Luckie
| Decision Date | 16 March 1949 |
| Docket Number | 16552. |
| Citation | 52 S.E.2d 588,205 Ga. 100 |
| Parties | JACKSON v. LUCKIE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under the circumstances disclosed by the record, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion, after awarding the custody of an illegitimate child to the paternal grandmother, in providing that the mother of the child should have the right to have the child visit in her home at reasonable times and for reasonable periods.
This is a contest between parents, involving the custody of an illegitimate child, with the award of custody having been made to a third party, the paternal grandmother.
On August 8, 1945, Harry T. Jackson filed a petition, seeking the custody of the minor child and an injunction against the mother of the child, restraining her from interfering with the plaintiff's custody of the child. An interlocutory injunction was granted and a rule nisi issued. On December 21, 1945, the defendant filed a motion, in which she requested a modification of the order previously entered so as to allow the defendant's child to visit in her home on certain dates. An order was entered, allowing the defendant to have the child during the Christmas holidays. Subsequently on May 23, 1946, the defendant, filed an answer and cross-action, in which she sought custody of the child; and, after a hearing, the court passed an order on July 9, 1946, by the agreement and consent of the parties granting custody to the plaintiff, with the provision that the child should remain in the home of the plaintiff's mother, and with the further provision that the mother of the child should have the privilege of having the child visit in her home on every other Saturday and Sunday in each month and during the mother's vacation period each year. By consent, it was further provided that the court should reserve the right to modify the order upon the application of either party.
On November 22, 1947, the defendant filed an application, in which she alleged that the plaintiff had failed and refused to comply with the previous order of the court, and that the plaintiff and his mother were concealing the child and refusing to allow the mother to see the child. She prayed that the plaintiff and his mother be adjudged in contempt of court, and that the custody of the child be awarded to her. On a hearing, the paternal grandmother was adjudged in contempt of court, but it was provided that she might purge herself by fully complying with the order in the future. Subsequently, on August 6, 1948, the court passed an order, in which it was recited that the plaintiff and his mother had failed and refused to comply with the order of the court dated July 9, 1946, and it was ordered and adjudge that the defendant be allowed to have her child visit in her home on each week-end, and it was further ordered that, upon refusal of the plaintiff and his mother to comply with the order, the sheriff of Fulton County should take possession of the child and deliver the child to its mother.
On August 13, 1948, the defendant again sought to have the plaintiff and his mother adjudged in contempt of court, alleging that the plaintiff and his mother failed and refused to comply with the order of August 6, 1948, and she prayed that she be granted custody of the child. A rule nisi issued, and after a hearing, the court passed an order, providing, in part, that the paternal grandmother should be allowed to retain the custody of the minor child, but further providing that the mother of the child should be allowed to have her minor daughter visit her on Saturday and Sunday of each week, one week during the Christmas holidays, and during the month of July of each year.
To this order the plaintiff excepted, contending that the trial judge abused his discretion 'in failing to provide for the permanent and exclusive custody of said minor child in plaintiff and plaintiff's foster mother, and says that the court erred in failing to find that the defendant was not a fit and proper person to have the custody of said minor child to any extent other than reasonable visitation.'
Ralph R. Quillian, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Swift Tyler, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
It would serve no useful purpose to state the voluminous evidence adduced on the trial of this case. On the material issues the evidence was conflicting. Briefly, it appears that the child in question is the illegitimate daughter of the plaintiff and the defendant, born during the time the plaintiff and the defendant were cohabiting for a period of about four years. After the birth of the child, and after it was several months old, the child was taken to the home of the paternal grandmother. The evidence was conflicting as to whether the defendant alone, or the defendant in company with the plaintiff, took the child to the grandmother's home. The defendant testified that the child was temporarily left by both parents with the grandmother while the parents went on a trip to Birmingham, Alabama. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griggs v. Barnes
...272 App.Div. 79, 69 N.Y.S.2d 462, affirmed 297 N.Y. 692, 77 N.E.2d 8; State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415, 75 N.W. 725; Jackson v. Luckie, 205 Ga. 100, 52 S.E.2d 588; Ex parte Schwartzkopf, 149 Neb. 460, 31 N.W.2d 294; Ex parte Malley, 131 N.J.Eq. 404, 25 A.2d 630; French v. Catholic Community ......
-
Guardianship of Smith, In re
...272 App.Div. 79, 69 N.Y.S.2d 462, affirmed, 297 N.Y. 692, 77 N.E.2d 8; State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415, 75 N.W. 725; Jackson v. Luckie, 205 Ga. 100, 52 S.E.2d 588; Ex parte Schwartzkopf, 149 Neb. 460, 31 N.W.2d 294; Ex parte Malley, 131 N.J.Eq. 404, 25 A.2d 630; French v. Catholic Community......
- Huckaby v. Griffin Hosiery Mills
- Stanley v. Greenfield