Rhea, Application of

• Decision Date: 12 June 1971
• Docket Number: No. 46265,46265
• Citation: 207 Kan. 610,485 P.2d 1382
• Parties: Application of Shirley RHEA for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Shirley RHEA, Appellant, v. Mary Ann VINER, formerly Mary Ann Eastwood, Appellee.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 1382

485 P.2d 1382

207 Kan. 610

Application of Shirley RHEA for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Shirley RHEA, Appellant, v. Mary Ann VINER, formerly Mary Ann Eastwood, Appellee.

No. 46265.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

June 12, 1971.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A minor child cannot be the subject of a valid gift and a parent cannot merely by giving away a child be deprived of the right to its custody.

2. Custody of a minor child is not a matter to be determined by contract.

3. Where the contest for child custody is between a parent and a third party, a parent who is able to care for his child and desires to do so, and who has not been found to be unfit to have such custody in a proceeding where that question is in issue, is entitled to custody as against the third party or others who have no permanent or legal right to custody.

Thomas E. Joyce, Kansas City, argued the cause, and Mary Jane Joyce, Shawnee Mission, was with him on the briefs, for appellant.

J. R. Russell, Kansas City, argued the cause and was on the brief, for appellee.

HARMAN, Commissioner.

In this habeas corpus action the natural mother and her sister are contesting over the custody of a young child. The maternal aunt prevailed in the trial court and the mother has appealed.

For our purposes the facts are not in controversy and may be briefly summarized.

The child in question, Stephanie Lynn Mask, was born December 15, 1967. At that time the child's natural mother, Shirley Rhea, appellant herein, was married to Del Rhea, Jr. Appellant and Rhea had separated in June, 1966. Thereafter they had a brief reconciliation, cohabiting for three days in March, 1967, during which interval appellant became pregnant with Stephanie Lynn. At the conclusion of this three day period appellant's husband left her and she has not seen him since. They have never been divorced.

When appellant was about six months pregnant she made an arrangement with her sister, whose name was then Mary Ann Mask, appellee herein, whereby appellant would seek medical services and enter the hospital for her confinement under her sister's name, the sister to assume all expense in connection with the child's birth and thereafter to have its custody as though it had always been her own child. Appellant's mother and other relatives were cognizant of this arrangement. Appellant made this agreement because she felt financially unable to bear the expense involved. Appellee had no child, was unable to have one and wanted appellant's expected child.

The foregoing arrangement was carried out. Appellant sought medical services and entered the hospital under appellee's then name; Stephanie Lynn was born; upon leaving the hospital three days thereafter appellant turned her over to appellee and, except for one week-end, appellee has had her ever since. Stephanie Lynn does not know appellant is her mother.

Appellant testified she now considers herself financially able to care for Stephanie Lynn and wants her custody. As a result of her marriage to Rhea appellant has an older daughter, April Marie, whose custody she has always had. She maintains a three room apartment for herself and April Marie, who was four years of age at the time of the hearing. Appellant has worked at the same manufacturing company for seven years. The older daughter is taken care of at a day care center while she works. She has started bank accounts and taken out insurance policies for both her daughters. She has given some clothing and also a Christmas gift to Stephanie.

Appellee, who has been married four times, testified appellant was always telling her she was going to take Stephanie back and was always trying to take Stephanie away from her; Stephanie was nervous when she returned from a week-end visit with appellant; appellant told their mother she had planned to regain Stephanie's custody ever since the day appellee took her. There was testimony appellee has been a good mother. No adoption proceedings were ever filed.

Appellant commenced this proceeding December 8, 1969.

The entire findings of fact and the judgment of the trial court are embraced in its oral statement made at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing as follows:

'This is an unusual factual situation. Both parties agreed prior to the birth of this child that the custody of the child when born would be vested in the Respondent and that agreement was consummated and was...