Pfeiffer v. Pfeiffer
| Decision Date | 01 June 1923 |
| Citation | 99 Conn. 154,121 A. 174 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | PFEIFFER v. PFEIFFER. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Newell Jennings Judge.
Petition by Thomas J. Pfeiffer against Luella H. Pfeiffer for writ of habeas corpus to determine the custody of a minor child. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The superior court is the proper forum to determine the question of the custody of an infant, raised in divorce proceedings and by writ of habeas corpus; in other cases probate courts have exclusive jurisdiction.
The plaintiff and defendant intermarried February 20, 1917, and a daughter was born of the marriage who was four years old when these proceedings were instituted in December, 1921.
In the spring of 1921 the defendant had brought an action against the plaintiff for divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty and the action was dismissed on its merits. At that time the child was in the custody of the mother, and the father then brought this action. At a hearing in December 1921, the parties, with the advice and agreement of the court, entered into a stipulation apportioning the custody of the child for the period up to the opening of the public schools of Norwich for the fall term of 1922 " upon which day said Thomas J. Pfeiffer shall deliver and return said child to its mother Luella H. Pfeiffer, when said parties hereto shall agree as to the further custody of said child." The cause was continued pending performance of this stipulation. It was duly performed up to the day when the plaintiff was to return the child to its mother, which he refused to do and has since retained its custody. The defendant first asked for a ruling to show cause why the plaintiff should not be adjudged in contempt for refusing to perform the stipulation, but at the suggestion of the court the cause was heard on its merits with a view to determine the custody of the child. The court has found that both parties are devoted to the child, that both are suitable persons to have the custody of the child, and that the best interests of the child will be served by awarding the custody to the mother, but allowing the child to visit the father for the Christmas and summer school vacations in each year. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Arthur M. Brown and Charles V. James, both of Norwich, for appellant.
George C. Morgan, of New London, and Lee R. Robbins, of Norwich, for appellee.
The assignments of error pursued on the brief are that the court had no jurisdiction in this action to disturb the plaintiff's custody of the child, that the exclusive jurisdiction to remove the plaintiff as guardian was in the probate court, and that the court erred in finding and refusing to find certain facts.
We have examined the evidence and see no reason to correct the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGaffin v. Roberts
...parents or between a parent and a stranger. Antedomenico v. Antedomenico, 142 Conn. 558, 562, 115 A.2d 659 [1955]; Pfeiffer v. Pfeiffer, [99 Conn. 154, 157, 121 A. 174 (1923)]." Baram v. Schwartz, supra, 318-19, 197 A.2d 334. We further explicated the use of habeas corpus in child custody m......
-
Bd.man v. Bd.man.
...442, 117 A. 504; Goshkarian's Appeal, 110 Conn. 463, 466, 148 A. 379; that right continued after their separation; Pfeiffer v. Pfeiffer, 99 Conn. 154, 157, 121 A. 174; White v. White, 77 N.H. 26, 29, 86 A. 353; and the right of each parent was independent of that of the other. Illingworth v......
-
Garrett's Appeal From Probate
...case, the legal rights and obligations of each parent as guardian remain equal, even though they lived apart. Cf. Pfeiffer v. Pfeiffer, 99 Conn. 154, 157, 121 A. 174 (1923).7 See Conn. Joint Standing Committee Hearings, Judiciary, Pt. 5, 1979 Sess., pp. 1514-19, 1556; 22 S.Proc., Pt. 10, 19......
-
Howarth v. Northcott
...rights of no one, including the parents, are allowed to militate. Mullins v. Becker, 113 Conn. 526, 529, 155 A. 705; Pfeiffer v. Pfeiffer, 99 Conn. 154, 157, 121 A. 174; Kelsey v. Green, 69 Conn. 291, 298, 37 A. 679, 38 L.R.A. 471. The child is in the position of a ward of the state. Dunham......
-
Advocating for Connecticut's Children During Their Parents' Divorces and Custody Disputes After Carrubba v. Moskowitz: the Past, the Present and the Future State of the Law for Attorneys for Minor Children and Guardians Ad Litem
...Conn. 440, 442, 117 A. 504, 505 (1922), rev'd on other grounds, 131 Conn. 385, 40 A.2d 754 (1944); Pfeiffer v. Pfeiffer, 99 Conn. 154, 157, 121 A. 174, 175 FN5 Parent vs. parent disputes may be incident to a dissolution action between the parents (CONN. GEN. STAT. § 46b-56) or may be a sepa......