Richardson v. Browning

• Decision Date: 04 April 1927
• Docket Number: No. 4511.,4511.
• Parties: RICHARDSON v. BROWNING.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

57 App. DC 186, 18 F.2d 1008 (1927)

RICHARDSON v. BROWNING.

No. 4511.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted March 7, 1927.

Decided April 4, 1927.

F. H. Stephens and R. B. Keech, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

C. N. Joyce, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and GRAHAM, Presiding Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

GRAHAM, Acting Associate Justice.

Evelyn Browning was born on December 22, 1908, and was legally married to one Tracy Browning on September 30, 1921. On the 21st of June, 1923, a petition was filed by one Mary G. Gainey, of the women's bureau of the metropolitan police force of the District of Columbia, in the juvenile court of said District, praying that said Evelyn Browning be adjudged destitute of a suitable home and adequate means of earning an honest living, and to have her committed to the Board of Children's Guardians, in accordance with the provisions of an act entitled "An act to provide for the care of dependent children in the District of Columbia and to create a board of children's guardians." 27 Stat. 268, 269. Thereafter, on March 25, 1924, and pursuant to said petition, the said Evelyn Browning was adjudged destitute and committed to said board by the said court, she being at that time 15 years of age.

On the 23d day of April, 1924, the said Evelyn Browning having become uncontrollable, the said Board of Children's Guardians, claiming to act as her legal guardian, filed a petition in the said juvenile court, praying to have her adjudged incorrigible and committed to the National Training School for Girls, in accordance with the provisions of an act entitled "An act to incorporate the Reform School for Girls of the District of Columbia," approved July 9, 1888 (25 Stat. 245), as amended by the District of Columbia Appropriation Act approved June 26, 1912 (37 Stat. 171). Pursuant to said petition, a judgment and order of said court was entered on May 7, 1924, adjudging the said Evelyn Browning to be incorrigible, and committing her to said National Training School for Girls "until reformed, or during her minority."

On January 12, 1926, the said Evelyn Browning filed in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia a petition for habeas corpus, in which she represented that she was a married woman at the time she was so committed to the National Training School for Girls, that she is being held by that institution without any color or pretense of law whatever, and that she should be discharged from further custody by said National Training School for Girls. Issues having been joined on this petition, and the facts as heretofore stated having been stipulated, thereafter, on April 1, 1926, an order was entered by the said Supreme Court, discharging the petitioner from the custody of the superintendent of said National Training School. From that judgment an appeal has been prayed to this court by the superintendent of said training school.

The act entitled "An act for the protection of children in the District of Columbia and for other purposes," approved February 13, 1885 (23 Stat. 302), provided that the Washington Humane Society should have authority to prefer complaints before any court of the District of Columbia having jurisdiction in any case where the welfare of a child was involved. This act also gave authority and power to the agents of said society to take before said courts dependent and delinquent children, and to prosecute those who were responsible for such dependency or delinquency. Thereafter, by the act approved July 26, 1892, entitled "An act to provide for the care of dependent children in the District of Columbia and to create a board of children's guardians" (27 Stat. 268), the Board of Children's Guardians of the District of Columbia was created.

Said act provided, in substance, that the said board should have the care and supervision of children committed under the Act of February 13, 1885, supra, of children who were destitute of suitable homes and adequate means of earning an honest living, abandoned children, children of unfit parents, vagrants, children exposed to vicious or immoral associations, and vicious and incorrigible children, when committed to the care of such board by the police or criminal courts of the District, which courts were given power to make such commitment when the child in question was not over 16 years of age. Section 5 of this act provided that the said board should be the legal guardian of all such children so committed to it by the courts.

By the act approved March 19, 1906, entitled "An act to create a juvenile court in and for the District of Columbia" (34 Stat. 73), the juvenile court of the District of Columbia was created, and this court, by section 8 of said act, was given original and exclusive jurisdiction over children such as had theretofore been exercised by other courts of the said District, under and by virtue of the Act of February 13, 1885, supra, and other acts amendatory thereof (27 Stat. 268; 31 Stat. 1095). Said section 8 provided, in part:

"* * * All children of the class now liable to be committed to the Reform School for Boys and the Reform School for Girls shall hereafter be committed by the juvenile court to said schools respectively. * * *"

An act entitled "An act revising and amending the various acts establishing and relating to the Reform School in the District of Columbia," approved May 3, 1876 (19 Stat. 49 Comp. St. § 9392 et seq.), provided (section 8) that boys under the age of 16 years, who might be committed by any of the courts of the District of Columbia, might be committed to the Reform School of said District until they should arrive at the age of 21 years. Various causes were given which might be sufficient to authorize such commitment, one of which is the following:

"* * * Fourth, any boy under sixteen years of age who is incorrigible, or habitually disregards the commands of his father or mother, or guardian, who leads a vagrant life, or resorts to immoral places or practices, or, neglects or refuses to perform labor suitable to his years and condition, or to attend school. And the president of the board of trustees may also commit to the Reform School such boys as are mentioned in the foregoing third and fourth classes upon application or complaint in writing of a parent, or guardian. * * *"

By the Act of July 9, 1888, entitled "An act to incorporate the Reform School for Girls of the District of Columbia" (25 Stat. 245), a reform school for girls of the District of Columbia was authorized, the powers thereof to be exercised by a board of trustees, which board was given the same powers and duties relative to girls as were given with respect to boys by the Act of May 3, 1876, supra.

From a consideration of these various statutes above cited, it is apparent that the juvenile court of the District of Columbia, at the time of the commitment of Evelyn Browning to the custody of appellant, had full and complete jurisdiction of not only her person, but of the subject-matter as well. She, being admittedly of the age of 15 years and incorrigible, must be held to have been properly committed to the custody of appellant, unless some error is apparent in the record of her commitment, or unless the principal contention made by her is sufficient to authorize her discharge, namely, that she was a married woman at the time of her commitment.

We have carefully examined the record, and are unable to discern wherein the petitioner has been deprived of any of the rights which are secured to her by the law of this jurisdiction. In Rule v. Geddes, 23 App. D. C. 31, Mr. Justice Shepard, speaking for the court, called attention to the fact that such proceedings are not intended as punishment, but are for the moral and physical well-being of the children involved. He said:

"The proceedings had upon this application were but the methods prescribed by law for the permitted transfer of guardianship of the person and for the protection of the state from imposition. The so-called commitment was but the legal warrant for the admission of the petitioner into the institution, and no more an order for imprisonment than are letters of guardianship issued by a probate court, or a decree transferring the possession of an infant made by a tribunal having jurisdiction of its custody in a particular case. The child herself, having no right to control her own action or to select her own course of life, had no legal right to be heard in these proceedings. Hence, the law which does not require her to be brought in person before the committing officer, or extend her the privilege of a hearing on her own behalf, cannot be said to deprive her of the benefit of due process of law."

To a like effect are State v. Bryant, 94 Neb. 754, 144 N. W. 804; Weber v. Doust, 84 Wash. 330, 146 P. 623; In re Mary Turner, 94 Kan. 115, 145 P. 871, Ann. Cas. 1616E, 1022; In re Hazel Sharp, 15 Idaho, 120, 96 P. 563, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 886; Lindsay v. Lindsay, 257 Ill. 328, 100 N. E. 892, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 908, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1222, and authorities hereinafter more specifically referred to.

Section 1126 of the District of Columbia Code provides:

"Sec. 1126. When Guardianship Ceases. — The natural guardianship or the appointive guardianship of the person aforesaid shall cease, in the case of a male infant when he is twenty-one years of age, and in the case of a female infant when she is eighteen years of age or marries."

In view of this statute, it becomes material to inquire whether, upon the marriage of the petitioner, all custody over her person by the Children's Board of Guardians and the National Training School for Girls ceased. As we have...