Long v. O'Mary, 4 Div. 6
| Decision Date | 17 December 1959 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 6 |
| Parties | Bryant P. LONG et al. v. Lee W. O'MARY, Director. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. W. Brassell and Roy H. Phillips, Phenix City, for appellants.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Julius Cage, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is a child custody case.
The appeal to this court is by Bryant P. Long and his wife, Pearl Long, from a final decree of the Circuit Court of Russell County, in Equity, ordering that the child be removed from the custody of the Longs and placed in the care, custody and control of the State Department of Pensions and Security.
The child is illegitimate. He was born on June 9, 1958. Within a few days of his birth his mother placed him in the custody of Mrs. Long, in accordance with an agreement previously made. The Longs paid the mother's hospital expenses.
There is some indication in the record to the effect that the Longs instituted adoption proceedings in the Probate Court of Russell County and that the child's mother evidenced her consent to such an adoption. The record further indicates that the mother later withdrew her consent and the petition for adoption was denied.
The present litigation was commenced on December 2, 1958, by the filing of a 'Petition for Custody' in the equity court by Lee W. O'Mary as the Director of the Russell County Department of Pensions and Security. The petition averred, among other things, that the child 'should be adjudged a ward of the State since he is in need of the care and protection of the State because he is in such condition and surroundings in the home of Bryant P. and Pearl Long and is under such improper and insufficient guardianship or control as to endanger his morals, health and general welfare.'
The Circuit Court of Russell County, in equity, has the inherent power and jurisdiction to determine questions relating to the custody of minor children. It was not deprived of that jurisdiction by the provisions of § 351, Title 13, Code 1940. See Whitfield v. Saulsberry, 247 Ala. 690, 26 So.2d 93; Ex parte Graham, 266 Ala. 1, 95 So.2d 390.
The State Department of Pensions and Security now has the responsibilities and exercises all the powers and duties previously invested by law in the State Department of Public Welfare and the County Departments of Pensions and Security now have the responsibilities, powers and duties previously given to the County Departments of Public Welfare. Act 341, effective October 1, 1955, 1955 Acts of Alabama, p. 763.
The right of a court of equity upon petition of a director of a County Department of Pensions and Security to award a dependent or neglected child to the State Department of Pensions and Security is not questioned. See Ex parte Graham, supra; Bianco v. Graham, 268 Ala. 385, 106 So.2d 655.
The grant or refusal of a continuance rests within the discretion of the trial court. Dollar v. McKinney, 267 Ala. 627, 103 So.2d 785; American Rubber Corp. v. Jollley, 260 Ala. 600, 72 So.2d 102, 67 A.L.R.2d 489; Ex parte Driver, 258 Ala. 233, 62 So.2d 241. We cannot say with any degree of certainty that the record reflects an abuse of discretion by the trial court in refusing the continuance. True, the senior member of the firm representing the Longs had been hospitalized the day before the trial commenced. But his partner appeared at the hearing and expressed the desire that the cause proceed after a few hours delay, rather than have the custody of the child awarded temporarily to the State Department of Pensions and Security in the event a long continuance was granted, as the trial court indicated would be his ruling.
We consider that the allegations of the petition are sufficient to call into exercise the full jurisdiction of the equity court with respect to the custody of the child in question. Mere legal niceties of pleading are not favored in cases of this character. Bureau of Catholic Charities v. Deakle, 253 Ala. 471, 45 So.2d 163; Scott v. Scott, 247 Ala. 598, 25 So.2d 673; Easterling v. Caton, 260 Ala. 543, 71 So.2d 835.
Bryant P. Long was called as a witness by the complainant and was examined concerning prior arrests and convictions. It is here asserted that Long was thereby required to give evidence against himself in violation of § 6 of Article 1 of the Constitution of Alabama. There is no merit in this assertion. Assuming without deciding or conceding that Long was entitled to refuse to testify in this case because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. State
...nor is such a decree subject to review on assignments of error on appeal from the final decree. Equity Rule 62, Code 1940; Long v. O'Mary, 270 Ala. 99, 116 So.2d 563; O'Bar v. Town of Rainbow City, 269 Ala. 247, 112 So.2d 790; Oliver v. Dudley, 267 Ala. 87, 100 So.2d 327; Hipp v. McMurry, 2......
-
Anonymous v. Anonymous
...questioned as to their knowledge of the acts of the wife. The privilege is personal and must be claimed in each instance. Long v. O'Mary, 270 Ala. 99, 116 So.2d 563. It is only by presenting the question that the right to privilege may be determined. Ex parte Blakey, 240 Ala. 517, 199 So. 8......
-
Taylor v. Jones
...Ala. 369, 141 So.2d 200. Nor is such a decree subject to review on assignments of error on appeal from the final decree. Long v. O'Mary, 270 Ala. 99, 116 So.2d 563; Whitman v. Whitman, 253 Ala. 643, 46 So.2d Walter Fox owned approximately fifty-six acres of land in Clarke County. On Februar......
-
Strickland v. McClendon
...out a dispute over the custody of a child, which would trigger the equitable jurisdiction of the trial court. See Long v. O'Mary, 270 Ala. 99, 101, 116 So.2d 563, 565 (1959). The mother complains that the father did not allege that he was seeking a modification of the custody of the child b......