State Ex rel. Evangelical Lutheran Kinderfreund Society of Minnesota v. White
| Decision Date | 05 December 1913 |
| Docket Number | 18,522 - (306) |
| Citation | 144 N.W. 157,123 Minn. 508 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN KINDERFREUND SOCIETY OF MINNESOTA v. CHARLES E. WHITE |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Upon the relation of the Evangelical Lutheran Kinderfreund Society of Minnesota, the district court for Wright county issued its writ of heabeas corpus directed to Charles E. White. The matter was heard by Giddings, J., who made findings and ordered judgment discharging the writ and awarding the custody of the child in question to respondent. From that order relator appealed and the appeal was tried de novo. Affirmed.
Habeas corpus -- custody of dependent child.
1. Where a child adjudged by the juvenile court to be dependent within Laws 1905, c. 285, and committed to the care of an eleemosynary association, leaves the home of persons to whom its custody is given by the association for sufficient cause and finds a home with other persons, the prime consideration on habeas corpus by the association to recover custody, is the child's welfare and not the legal right to custody.
Administration of Juvenile Court Act.
2. A determination in favor of respondent in such a case will not necessarily interfere with the general plan or administration of the Juvenile Court Act, even though the legislative preference, indicated by section 13 thereof, as to the religious beliefs of those to whom the custody of children within its terms may be awarded, be thereby disregarded especially in absence of radical differences of religious faith; the considerations involved in such section, however, being grave and weighty, and constituting an important element in the final determination.
Right of visitation upon part of relator.
3. The welfare of the child involved in this case held to require her to be left in respondent's custody, subject to the right of visitation on the part of relator, an eleemosynary association to which her custody had been previously awarded by the juvenile court.
Otto Kueffner, for appellant.
H. S. Whipple and Woolley & Johnson, for respondent.
Appeal by relator from an order of the district court, in habeas corpus proceedings, awarding custody of a female child 11 years old to respondent. The cause was tried here de novo, pursuant to G.S. 1913, § 8312, on the record made below.
It appeared that prior to January 4, 1911, the child's mother died, and on that date, after hearing duly had, the juvenile department of the district court of Hennepin county adjudged her dependent under Laws 1905, p. 418, c. 285, [1] and under section 7 thereof committed her to the care of relator, an eleemosynary corporation of St. Paul, organized under the laws of this state for the purpose of securing homes for orphan and other children, there to remain until she attained majority, unless sooner discharged by due course of law. Relator forthwith took her into its care, custody, and guardianship, and has since been prepared to furnish her a home. On the same date relator committed the care, custody and control of the child to a husband and wife, and she remained in their home until April 11, 1913, under the general supervision of relator. While there, however, but without relator's knowledge, she was so cruelly and inhumanly treated by one of her immediate custodians, as to justify her in leaving, which she did. Respondent, learning the circumstances, received her into his home on the same date, where she has since resided and desires to remain. On April 18, 1913, the probate court of the county where respondent resided, appointed him guardian of her person and estate, and he qualified as such. Respondent and his wife, while not of the same religious denomination as the child's parents, are, as they were, of the Christian faith, and further are estimable people, financially well off, have an ample and comfortable home, and are otherwise circumstanced and fitted to furnish the child material comforts and proper home surroundings. Reciprocal attachment exists between them and her, she in effect being treated as one of their own children, and they desire that she continue in such relation until her majority. They offer to provide her all necessaries, to educate her in our graded and higher schools, to supply special training if she develops talent, and to surround her with fostering care and parental attention, and plan to equip her as a teacher or along other useful lines, and, when she leaves their control, to furnish her with a substantial sum of money. On the other hand, relator proposes to take her to a comfortable and adequate temporary home, which it maintains in St. Paul, where she will be cared for properly until a home is found for her with people entertaining her parent's religious beliefs, which, it appears, can speedily be done.
1. Relator contends that the decree of the juvenile court entitles it, as a matter of law, to an order in this proceeding awarding the child's custody to it. The argument proceeds along these lines: Under the Juvenile Court Act, the district court had exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of the custody and control of this child, and its determination cannot be interfered with, modified, or questioned by another court or in another proceeding, so long as its decree remains unimpeached; and if the child's interests require change of custody, the juvenile department of the district court is the only tribunal to which application should be made. It is also claimed that any change of custody ordered in this proceeding would be contrary to the theory upon which the juvenile court proceeds and interferes with relator's rights, duties, and purposes; furthermore, that it would nullify section 13 [1] of the Juvenile Court Act, which provides that the court, in committing children to the custody of either private persons or associations, shall, so far as it deems practicable, place them with such as entertain, or are controlled by persons entertaining, religious beliefs like those of the parents.
These contentions cannot be sustained. We are not here considering the case of a delinquent child, nor an application to discharge one from a state institution. The purpose of the act, so far as concerns this child, was merely to provide her a proper home, and this the state proceeds to work out under its general power and jurisdiction over children. True it is that the act authorizes the court to commit children to associations similar to relator, and in such case they become their wards, subject to their guardianship, and they are vested with power to place them in family homes, with or without indenture, and may also assent to adoptions; and likewise, by other statutory provisions, the board of control has supervision of these associations. But the state, by this legislation, made the association merely one of its agencies to assist in carrying out its policy with respect to dependent children and in finding homes for them, and notwithstanding relator's temporary custody of the child here concerned, retained general control over her. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial