Spencer v. Franks

• Decision Date: 29 October 1937
• Citation: 195 A. 306,173 Md. 73
• Parties: SPENCER et ux. v. FRANKS.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

195 A. 306

173 Md. 73

SPENCER et ux. v. FRANKS.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

October 29, 1937

Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Eli Frank, Judge.

Adoption proceedings by William Spencer and Anna Spencer, his wife against Frances Rowena Franks. From an order dismissing the petition of William Spencer and Anna Spencer to modify the original adoption decree with respect to the privilege granted the natural parents to visit the child, William Spencer and Anna Spencer appeal.

Order reversed, and cause remanded.

Floyd J. Kintner, of Baltimore, for appellants.

Joseph H. Colvin, of Baltimore (Irving H. Mezger, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL SHEHAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.

PARKE Judge.

Robert William Spencer is an infant, the third child of Rowena Franks and Samuel Franks. The child was born on February 27 1930. Three months after his birth the parents separated and have never since lived together. Neither the mother nor the father has maintained a home, and the three children were left with their maternal grandmother. The mother and grandmother found they were unable to support the three children, and in March, 1931, the infant in question was placed temporarily with relatives of the father until the half sister of the father, Anna Spencer, gave the infant shelter. After about four months, the Spencers returned the infant to its mother, who sent the child to his maternal grandmother. The action of the Spencers was prompted by the bad health of Mrs. Spencer that followed an operation. The Spencers were childless and they had formed such an attachment for the child that they sought and obtained his return in September, 1931. The mother spent that Christmas with the Spencers and the boy, and, after she left to resume her work as a waitress in a restaurant in New York, she wrote: 'I know how you feel about Bobby and he is yours always. Only wish I could make up my mind to sign those papers. Do you really want me to do it, and would it make you both happy? If it would, I will do it for you. But, Anna, I would never try and take Booby from you. He is too happy with you and I could never make him that happy.' The following year, however, the mother informed the Spencers that she wished to have the infant. Shortly afterward, on November 25, 1932, William Spencer and Anna Spencer, his wife, began appropriate proceedings in equity for adoption. The father of the infant signed a formal assent to the adoption, and the mother was made a party defendant, answered and resisted the adoption. The matter of the adoption was controlled by the Code provisions, which were fully complied with, and, after a hearing, at which testimony was taken, a decree was entered. The chancellor adjudged, on May 24, 1933, that the infant be declared the legally adopted child of William Spencer and Anna Spencer, his wife, and that the name of the infant be changed to Robert William Spencer. The decree concluded in this phrase: 'With leave to parents to occasionally see the child.'

The child has remained in the custody of his adoptive parents. The docket entries show that the mother, on October 28, 1933, filed in this cause a petition for leave to visit the infant on the last Saturday of every month from 10 a.m. to 1 o'clock p.m. It appears that this authorization was given. However, on February 1, 1934, the natural mother filed another petition, which was answered by the adoptive parents, and later dismissed by the court. Again, on December 12, 1934, the natural father filed a petition for permission to see his son on alternating Sundays at the home of the adoptive parents. Again an answer was had and, after hearing, the request was granted.

These petitions, hearings, and orders were had by reason of the provision incorporated in the original decree of adoption and caused, on February 6, 1936, a petition to be filed on the part of the adoptive parents in which they allege that the visits of the natural father and mother to the child for stated periods at the home of the adoptive parents, or, in the case of the natural mother, at one of the rooms of the juvenile court to which the child is taken, have prejudicially affected the nervous condition of the infant and will, if continued, seriously impair his health. Upon these grounds, the petitioners prayed that the natural parents be required to show cause why the provision in the decree of adoption, which is found in the final additional words 'With leave to parents to occasionally see the child' should not be altered or modified in accordance with the circumstances of this case.

The answer of the natural father to this petition was a denial of any harmful effect of the visits; and an assertion that the decree is final and enrolled and, so, not to be amended or changed. The answer of the natural mother denied any ill effect of her visits upon the child, and attacked the decree on the grounds that the hearing was unfair; that the consent of the natural father to the adoption was obtained by fraud, which had recently come to her knowledge; that material testimony was suppressed at the hearing on which the decree is based; and that the incomplete testimony given on the part of the adoptive parents was the result of 'connivance' on the part of certain witnesses to deprive the natural mother of the custody of her child. On the averments thus summarily stated, the court passed an order requiring the adoptive parents to show cause why the decree of May 24, 1933, should not be rescinded and annulled. The answer to the charges of this pleading was a denial by the adoptive parents.

The next proceeding was on September 4, 1936, when Frances Rowena Franks filed a petition as 'the natural mother of the said infant, and in accordance with section 80, article 16 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1924,' and asked for the custody of the infant from September 12, 1936, to September 19, 1936. The chancellor granted this request, and compelled the adoptive parents to deliver the child, at a given time and place to the mother, who was required to remain in the city of Baltimore, and keep the child with her during the period named, and at its end to surrender the child to its adoptive parents at a room of the juvenile court.

Testimony was taken and the matters in issue submitted to the court which passed on December 22, 1936, the order from which this appeal is taken. By this order the chancellor refused to modify the original decree with respect to the privilege granted the natural parents, and dismissed the petition of the adoptive parents which prayed this modification. In addition the natural mother was given the right to have the infant with her from 9 o'clock in the morning until 5 o'clock in the afternoon on the last Saturday of every month, subject to the further order of the court. Although the court did not in terms refuse the relief asked by the natural mother to annul and rescind the original decree, a refusal is implicit in its order which depends upon the continued existence of the status created by the original decree. The averment of recently discovered fraud practiced upon the court in the passage of the decree was the only issue raised upon which a rescission might have been granted, but the testimony on that point is trivial and unconvincing and the chancellor rightly concluded the charge of fraud wholly unfounded. Backus v. Reynolds, 159 Md. 601, 152 A. 109. The questions open on this appeal are (1) whether the addendum to the decree of the clause 'With leave to parents to occasionally see the child' is void, and (2) whether the privilege allowed the natural mother to have the custody of the child on the last Saturday of every month is permissible under the circumstances.

1. The power of the court to consider the first question turns upon whether or not, in the absence of fraud, the parties plaintiff in a cause in equity, who have neither sought redress by appeal nor writ of error, may, when the times within which an appeal may be taken or a writ of error obtained have long since expired, dispute the validity of a part of a decree while conceding the validity of the rest. The answer depends upon the jurisdiction of the court. The inquiry, moreover, postulates jurisdiction, except as to the part assailed. The accepted doctrine is that, where a court has once acquired the requisite jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which is presented in the cause, and its judgment and decree, no matter how great the error, cannot be collaterally attacked. Fridge v. State, 3 Gill & J. 103, 112-114, 20 Am.Dec. 463. As a general rule, a decree is regarded as entire, but if a part be separate and distinct from the whole it may be considered independently. 34 C.J. § 812, p. 510; Freeman on Judgments (5th Ed.) § 324, pages 648, 649. If, therefore, such a divisible part be not within the power of the court to decree, it is a nullity and may be so treated and declared whenever its enforcement is sought or undertaken. Supra; Barnes v. American Fertilizer Co., 144 Va. 692, 130 S.E. 902, 906.

The court must stay within the limit of its jurisdiction and powers. The correction of wrong decisions when made within the scope of the court's authority is on appeal or other form of direct review, but a wrong or even a correct decision where the court has exceeded its jurisdiction and power is void, and may be set aside either directly or collaterally. As expressed by Freeman on Judgments (5th Ed.) § 354, pages 734-737: 'Hence though the court may have acquired the right to act in the cause and been put in possession of full jurisdiction to go ahead and dispose of the issues involved, its judgment in excess of the jurisdiction thus...