State ex rel. Renning v. Armstrong

• Decision Date: 01 November 1918
• Docket Number: 20,712
• Citation: 169 N.W. 249,141 Minn. 47
• Parties: STATE EX REL. J. O. RENNING v. MRS. A. R. ARMSTRONG
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

169 N.W. 249

141 Minn. 47

STATE EX REL. J. O. RENNING v. MRS. A. R. ARMSTRONG

No. 20,712

Supreme Court of Minnesota

November 1, 1918

Upon the relation of J. O. Renning the district court for St Louis county granted its writ of habeas corpus directed to Mrs. A. R. Armstrong. At the hearing before Fesler, J relator's demurrer to the return on the ground that relator had an absolute legal right to the custody of his daughter, was sustained, and the court admitted no evidence but ordered judgment in favor of relator. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, respondent appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Custody of child by father -- evidence.

Evidence considered and held insufficient to justify denying to the father the natural and legal right to the care and custody of his minor child.

H. W. Lanners and John Jenswold, for appellant.

Hugh J. McClearn, for respondent.

OPINION

BROWN, C.J.

Relator is the father of Sylvia Renning, an infant 9 years of age, the custody and care of whom is the subject matter of this proceeding. Her mother, relator's wife, died shortly after her birth, in July 1909, and with the consent of relator and at the death-bed request of the mother the infant was given into the care and keeping of respondent, a sister of the mother. She remained with respondent until the commencement of this proceeding, in March, 1917. At about that time relator married a second wife and then demanded that the child be given to him for future care and attention. Respondent refused to surrender the child and this proceeding followed. Judgment was given in the court below, awarding the custody of the child to relator and respondent appealed.

It is not seriously contended that relator is not a suitable person to have the custody and care of the child. The evidence discloses that with his present wife he maintains a home provided with suitable surroundings for a child of the age of this one, and that he is financially able properly and suitably to support and maintain her. In that situation he is entitled to her custody, unless his present wife is shown in moral character unfit for the duties incident to bringing up young children. State v. Anderson, 89 Minn. 198, 94 N.W. 681. Her character is challenged by respondent and it is earnestly urged that she is immoral and wholly unsuited to the duties of adopted motherhood. We have read the record with special care and are unable to concur in that contention. We are unable to find that Mrs. Renning is seriously open to the...