James v. Roberts (In re Bagley's Guardianship)
| Decision Date | 09 December 1930 |
| Parties | IN RE BAGLEY'S GUARDIANSHIP. JAMES v. ROBERTS. CLARK v. JAMES. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Two appeals, one from an order of the County Court for Winnebago County, D. E. McDonald, Judge; and one from an order of the Circuit Court for Winnebago County, Edgar V. Werner, Circuit Judge.
Proceeding by Ray Clark against Sarah James, guardian of James Bagley, a minor, to transfer custody of the ward to petitioner, and habeas corpus proceeding by Sarah James, guardian, against Hugh Roberts. From the orders made in the two proceedings, the guardian appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Order in habeas corpus proceeding affirmed. Order in custody proceeding reversed, with directions.
The appellant is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting guardian of James Bagley, a minor 11 years of age, and of his sister and three brothers. The parents are deceased, and there is practically no estate. James has two uncles, brothers of his mother, one of whom, Ray Clark of Fessenden, N. D., was the petitioner in the case styled “custody case.” Hugh Roberts, to whom the county court awarded the child, is an uncle by marriage of James' father, and he was the petitionerin the proceeding styled “the removal case,” a proceeding which was begun to secure the removal of the guardian, but which was dismissed. The guardian is also a distant relative, being a cousin of James' grandmother. For a short time after the death of James' mother he was with relatives in California, but in October, 1928, they sent him to the home of Mr. Roberts in Omro, Wis., where he was visited by the guardian and where he remained for some time with her consent and approval. They were then on friendly terms, and James liked his surroundings. Mr. Roberts did not intend to adopt the child, and told the guardian he did not expect his obligation to extend beyond the time when James would be 14 or 15 years old. The following December, 1928, arrangements were made by the guardian to have James spend some time with one of his little brothers, Watson, at her house.
Christmas night Mr. Roberts' daughter telephoned the guardian and asked if James might go to her house on the 26th because severe illness had broken out in the Roberts family. Several members were afflicted and the sickness was so severe that one died later.
The guardian received James, and during the troubled times at the Roberts home placed him in school; this being a temporary arrangement. At that time those interested expected James to return to the Roberts house. In February it appeared to be inconvenient to have James return, and statements were made that indicated that Mr. Roberts did not intend longer to be responsible for furnishing a home for James. At this time the guardian appears to have been anxious to have the relations between Mr. Roberts, his family, and James re-established on the basis existing from October to December. She talked with members of the family, and some letters were exchanged. James felt it was to be his home and, while the Roberts did not take him back then and wrote things which made it appear to the guardian that they did not intend he should return to live with them, still nothing occurred to estrange James and them. While this uncertainty continued, and after the letter of February 25, 1929, from Mr. Roberts to the guardian, in which he said, among other things, “Now we are through, he will be back on the bus this afternoon,” the guardian sought some plan for providing James with a more permanent arrangement as to home and education, gave it some study, and sought advice on it, and finally made application for James' admission to the Norris Farm Camps, where he was received the last of March, 1929, and remained until January, 1930. While there, James carried on correspondence freely with the Roberts family with the guardian's approval. Mr. Roberts said he did not know of the guardian's plan until he received letters from James written from the Norris school.
The relatives seem at all times to have shown a friendly interest, but in February, after the letter from the Roberts, the guardian was confronted with a situation requiring the making of some definite plan for James' immediate future. No home with any of his kin seemed available.
The general guardian secured James' admission to the Norris Farm and agreed that he must abide by the rules and regulations governing the boys at the farm, consented to the administering to him of such corporal punishment and other corrections as may be necessary to preserve discipline, consented to the administering of all necessary medical and surgical treatment in case of sickness or accident, and agreed to pay the costs and expenses of such treatment. It was provided that James was to attend the school without charge, and that, upon seven days' notice by either party desiring to terminate the contract, the relation might end.
The child appears to have been contented and happy during the time of his stay at the Norris Farm. After some correspondence between interested relatives and friends of James' mother, on September 2, 1929, Ray Clark, one of the uncles of James, applied to the county court for his and Watson's custody. The petition disclosed that he is a resident of Fessenden, N. D., is an uncle, and alleged that “your petitioner is a man of good moral character and of sufficient financial ability to give the said minors a good home, suitable clothing, proper care, and provide for all their needs,” and prayed for an order giving the care and custody of Watson Bagley and James Bagley to the petitioner. Proceedings were abandoned as to Watson. Upon this petition, and before its dismissal by the county court, considerable testimony was received tending to show the merits of the homes of Ray Clark, the Norris Farm Camps, and of Hugh Roberts. There is no evidence in the record to the effect that either of the homes or the Norris Farm Camps was not a proper place. It did appear that Ray Clark was not a resident of this state.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the petitioner, Ray Clark, withdrew his application, and Hugh...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of the Guardianship of Cade E. R., No. 03-0859 (Wis. App. 1/21/2004)
...an inclination to be indifferent to the interests of the ward, or some act detrimental to the ward's welfare." In re Bagley, 203 Wis. 89, 95, 233 N.W. 563 (1930). A general guardian of the person of an infant has responsibilities relating to the care, training, education, and general upbrin......
-
In re Guardianship of Catherine P.
...to act for their wards is in lieu of judicial micro-management of what is or is not best for the ward. See James v. Roberts, 203 Wis. 89, 94-95, 233 N.W. 563, 565 (1930). Thus, a guardian may not be removed merely because the court would have acted differently if clothed with the guardian's......
-
Petition of Loudin
...of their children. See Mowry v. Smith, 82 R.I. 82, 105 A.2d 815; Guardianship of Howard, 218 Cal. 607, 24 P.2d 486, and Guardianship of Bagley, 203 Wis. 89, 233 N.W. 563. Yet, marital discord resulting in divorce or legal separation may render the principle of natural guardianship incapable......
- Cowin & Co. v. City of Merrill