State ex rel. Coffield v. Buckner
| Decision Date | 31 December 1917 |
| Citation | 200 S.W. 94,198 Mo.App. 230 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. MAUDE M. COFFIELD, Relator, v. THOMAS B. BUCKNER, Judge, Respondent |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Judgment quashed.
L. C Boyle and A. E. Watson for petitioner.
Halbert H. McCluer for respondent.
Original Proceeding in Habeas Corpus.
This is an original proceeding by certiorari begun at the relation of Maude M. Coffield, whereby it is sought to inquire into the validity of an order or judgment of one of the divisions of the Jackson County Circuit Court presided over by Judge Buckner in a habeas corpus proceeding in that court, begun by Lewis E. Coffield, whereby he sought to have the custody and care of an infant child named Charmain L. Coffield discharged from its custodian and awarded to himself, said infant being the child of Maude and Lewis. It is alleged in relator's petition for the writ of certiorari, that on the record in the habeas corpus proceedings such circuit court was without jurisdiction, or, at least, had exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the custody and care of the child at the instance of Lewis Coffield.
Judge Buckner has made return of the record in the habeas corpus proceedings, including the order awarding the custody of the child to said Lewis Coffield. The writ of habeas corpus was directed to the relator herein, in whose immediate custody the child was, and she made return thereto, wherefrom it appears that she is the mother of the child and that she and the child living with her became residents of Jackson County, Missouri, in September, 1914. That subsequently, in October, 1914, proceedings were instituted in the Juvenile court of Jackson County (one of the divisions of the circuit court), a court of competent jurisdiction presided over by Judge Porterfield, by Lewis E Coffield wherein it was sought to place such child in the custody, care and wardship of said court as provided by the statute, sections 4098-4122, Revised Statutes 1909. Such proceedings in due time came for hearing, both the relator herein and Lewis E., the father, being present, when, after due consideration, a judgment of such court was entered declaring said child to be a neglected child and that she became the ward of the court. That subsequently said Juvenile court considering relator, the mother, to be a fit person to entrust with the conditional custody of the child, ordered such custody, with instructions that she should care for it and administer to it, reporting from time to time to the court as to its condition.
It is then further shown by such return in said habeas corpus proceedings, that after the judgment and orders of the Juvenile court had been entered, Lewis E. Coffield prosecuted a divorce suit in Allen county in the State of Kansas whereby, in entire disregard of the jurisdiction orders and judgments of the Juvenile court in Missouri, he sought to obtain, and did obtain, an order of the district court in Kansas awarding the custody of the child to himself, the child all the while residing in Missouri and a ward of, and in the custody of, the Juvenile court. That afterwards, the relator finding the judgment of the Kansas court had been rendered in her absence and desiring to have it set aside, went there for that purpose, and the child needing her daily care, was permitted by the Juvenile court to accompany her under the condition and understanding that she should return it to the Juvenile court. That when she took the child within the territorial jurisdiction of the District court in Kansas that court wrongfully deprived her of the possession of the child and gave the possession to Lewis E. Coffield, the father. That she protested the action of such court, which finally modified its order by dividing the custody between the father and its maternal grandmother, this relator also staying with the grandmother while in Kansas and continuing her care of the child. It is then further stated in said return that she received notice from the Juvenile court in Missouri and the "Probation Officer" of that court directing her to return the child and to make report of its condition; that she thereupon returned the child to the Juvenile court in this State, and then, at the suggestion of the probation officer, she placed the child in the Loretta Academy in Kansas City, Missouri, as a pupil, but that such child, by order of the Juvenile court, remained the ward of such court. It is then stated in the return that the orders of the District court of Kansas were in total disregard of the jurisdiction first obtained by the Juvenile court in Missouri.
It is further stated in said return that Lewis E. Coffield is an unfit person to have the custody of a female child of tender years on account of his personal habits, conduct and mode of living, and that he would put her out in the custody of strangers or relatives. That he has not and does not now, contribute to her support.
It is finally stated in said return that the judgment and orders of the Juvenile court are in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foege v. Woestendiek
... ... place in the summer. Asked to state whether he had disposed ... of the deed of trust to Mrs. Foege first or ... ...