Trenton v. Christ, 226

• Decision Date: 25 April 1958
• Docket Number: No. 226,226
• Citation: 216 Md. 418,140 A.2d 660
• Parties: James C. TRENTON and Joan K. Trenton, his wife, v. Philip T. CHRIST and Mildred C. Christ, his wife.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 418

216 Md. 418

140 A.2d 660

James C. TRENTON and Joan K. Trenton, his wife, v. Philip T. CHRIST and Mildred C. Christ, his wife.

No. 226.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 25, 1958.

Earl E. Manges, Cumberland, for appellants.

William L. Wilson, Cumberland, for appellees.

Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ., and JOHN B. GRAY, Jr., J., specially assigned.

JOHN B. GRAY, Jr., J., specially assigned.

The appellant is the father of a ten year old girl who now lives with her maternal grandparents in Cumberland, Maryland. This suit was instituted by him to procure the custody of his daughter after the child's mother had been killed in an automobile accident. His suit was resisted by the grandparents on the ground that the best interest of the child dictated that she remain with them. The case was heard before Judge George Henderson and resulted in continuing the custody of the child with the appellees. From this decree the father appealed. Both sides agree that ordinarily either parent is entitled to custody of a child in preference to any third person, but that this rule is subject to the qualification that such custody will be denied if (a) the parent is unfit to have custody, or (b) if there are such exceptional circumstances as make such custody detrimental to the best interest of the child.

The rule is clearly expressed in a well-considered opinion of this court by Judge Delaplaine in the case of Ross v. Pick, 199 Md. 341, at page 351, 86 A.2d 463, at page 468:

'Moreover, while the parents are ordinarily entitled to the custody of their minor children by the natural law, the common law, and the statute, this right is not an absolute one, but may be forfeited where it appears that any parent is unfit to have custody of a child, or where some exceptional circumstances render such custody detrimental to the best interests of the child * * *.

'Where parents claim the custody of a child, there is a prima facie presumption that the child's welfare will be best subserved in the care and custody of its parents rather than in the custody of others, and the burden is then cast upon the parties opposing them to show the contrary.'

See also Sibley v. Sibley, 187 Md. 358, 50 A.2d 128; Roussey v. Roussey, 210 Md. 261, 123 A.2d 354; Wilhelm v. Wilhelm, 214 Md. 80, 84, 133 A.2d 423. The appellees freely conceded that there is nothing wrong with the father, his second wife, or his home, which would make him unfit to have the custody of his daughter. This case resolves into a question of whether the circumstances are so exceptional as to justify the grant of the custody of the child to the grandparents subject of course, to the continuing jurisdiction of the court. The Chancellor had an opportunity to see and hear all of the witnesses, including the child. He, too, is a long time resident of the community where the little girl has made her home with her mother and her grandparents for eight years and his opinion on this delicate question must be accorded great weight by this court.

Let us briefly examine the facts. The parents of the little girl were both residents of Cumberland and were married in 1946. They separated in 1949 or 1950 and he procured a divorce on the ground of desertion in 1951. The record in this case sheds little light upon the cause for the breakup of this home, but the Chancellor in the course of his opinion mentioned that the plaintiff had indicated in the divorce proceeding that the separation was caused by 'difficulties growing out of our religious differences.' After the separation, the child and her mother went to live with her maternal grandparents in their home in Cumberland. The mother was employed and doubtless much of the responsibility for the upbringing of her grandchild devolved upon the grandmother. The father of the child remarried in 1952 and he and the second wife now have a 3 1/2 year old son who is handicapped by the loss of his vision at birth. From 1952 until 1956, the appellant was employed in Delaware and at that time was sent to his employer's plant in Michigan and established his home across the river in Wisconsin where he rents with option to buy a quite adequate home.

On May 18, 1957, some 3 1/2 months before this case was heard by the Chancellor, the little girl and her mother were involved in a serious automobile accident in...