State ex rel. Peter v. Stanga

• Decision Date: 28 June 1926
• Docket Number: 27602
• Citation: 161 La. 978,109 So. 783
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. PETER v. STANGA et ux

109 So. 783

161 La. 978

STATE ex rel. PETER v. STANGA et ux

No. 27602

Supreme Court of Louisiana

June 28, 1926

Rehearing Denied October 5, 1926

Appeal from Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa; Charles Kilbourne, Judge.

Habeas corpus by the State, on the relation of Anthony T. Peter as father and natural tutor of his minor child, Lillian Mary Peter, torecover the custody of said child from Ben Stanga and wife. Judgment for respondents, and relator appeals.

Affirmed.

Robert S. Ellis, Jr., of Amite, and Harvey E. Ellis, of Covington for appellant.

Amos L Ponder, of Amite, for appellees.

ROGERS J. ST. PAUL, J., dissents.

OPINION

ROGERS, J.

Relator seeks by habeas corpus to obtain possession of his daughter, Lillian Mary Peter, aged seven years. Respondents are the maternal grandparents of the child. The court below awarded them the custody of the child, with the reservation of the right of the relator to visit her and have her visit him at any time he so desires. Relator has appealed from the judgment.

Lillian Mary Peter is the sole issue of the marriage of the relator with Lillian Stanga, respondents' daughter. The mother of the child died in giving her birth. Mrs. A. B. Stanga, the grandmother, took charge of the infant at the home of the relator, and, when she became six days old, no one claiming her, and the relator assenting thereto, she carried the child to her home, about two miles distant, and has possessed and cared for her since that time.

The evidence shows that relator has, from time to time, contributed to the support of his child. He is a hard-working, honest farmer, and is able to maintain her in accordance with his condition in life. He visited his child, while at the home of her grandparents, more or less frequently, and she visited him at his home from time to time. About three years ago relator married a second time. His present wife is a first cousin of his first wife. By his second wife he has one child, who is about a year old. Relator's wife, in addition to caring for her child, does all the laborious work required of a farmer's wife, without the assistance of a servant or other help.

The grandparents are amply able to support the child, and are more than willing to do so.

We think the exceptional features of this case remove it from the grasp of the codal articles and decisions relied upon by relator. The real issue involved, as we view it, is not so much whether the cold technical right of the father to the...