Mastrovich v. Mavric

• Decision Date: 22 July 1939
• Docket Number: No. 8131.,8131.
• Citation: 66 S.D. 577,287 N.W. 97
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
• Parties: MASTROVICH v. MAVRIC.

66 S.D. 577

287 N.W. 97

MASTROVICH

v.MAVRIC.

No. 8131.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

July 22, 1939.

Appeal from Lawrence County Court; Lynn Milne, Judge.

Proceeding by Pauline M. Mastrovich against Alois Mavric for leave to adopt Antonia Mary Mavric, her grandchild. From an order denying petition for the adoption of her grandchild, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Francis J. Parker, of Deadwood, and E. A. Steinback, of Lead, for appellant.

Hayes & Hayes, of Deadwood, for respondent.

WARREN, Presiding Judge.

Petitioner, Pauline Mastrovich, petitioned the county court of Lawrence County, South Dakota, for leave to adopt Antonia Mary Mavric, her grandchild. The petitioner appeared in person and by her attorneys and the father of the child appeared in person and by his attorneys. The court, having examined the parties and considered the evidence, issued an order on the twenty-fifth day of September, 1937, a part of which order reads as follows:

“* * * And it appearing to the satisfaction of the court from the testimony and proofs adduced at said hearing that the said Alois Mavric does not consent to the adoption of the said Antonia Mary Mavric as prayed in the petition of Pauline Mastrovich and that the said Alois Mavric has not abandoned his said child as alleged in said petition, and the court being of the opinion that said petition should be in all things denied, it is, therefor,

“Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the petition of Pauline Mastrovich, a widow, for an order declaring Antonia Mary Mavric to be her adopted child, which said petition was filed with the clerk of this court on the 15th day of July, 1937, be and the same is in all things hereby denied. * * *”

The petitioner perfected an appeal to this court from the said order of the county court on October fifth, 1937. Appellant states in her written brief: “There is but one assignment of error upon which appellant relies on appeal, * * *. The county court erred in entering its order dated September 25th, 1937, denying appellant's petition for the adoption of her grandchild, Antonia Mary Mavric, for the reason that the same was contrary to the evidence and against the law * * *.”

In examining the evidence we will therefore particularly concern ourselves with the testimony and proofs adduced at the hearing in order to ascertain whether or not there is sufficient evidence to sustain the court's order, first, that the father did not consent to the adoption of said child; second, that he had not abandoned said child. If there is sufficient evidence supporting these two propositions, then the decision of the trial court must stand.

[1][2] We do not believe that it would serve any useful purpose to discuss the evidence further than to give our conclusions as to the result of our investigation of the record. We have examined the evidence in this case very carefully and we believe that the court was fully justified in reaching the conclusion that the father did not consent to the adoption and that the father had not abandoned his child. To constitute abandonment...