Wood v. Shaw
| Decision Date | 11 April 1914 |
| Docket Number | 18,723 |
| Parties | F. E. WOOD, Appellant, v. N. F. SHAW et al., Appellees |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1914.
Appeal from Pratt district court; PRESTON B. GILLETT, judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
PARENT AND CHILD--Mother Deceased--Father Entitled to Custody of Minors. A father of two infant children upon the death of their mother placed them with her parents, under an agreement that they should remain there until fourteen years of age. Four years later the father, having remarried, sought to regain their custody. Held, that he was not bound by the agreement, and being a proper person for the purpose, was entitled to have them restored to him.
R. F. Crick, William Barrett, and L. G. Turner, all of Pratt, for the appellant.
F. L. Martin, Van M. Martin, both of Hutchinson, and W. B. Hess, of Pratt, for the appellees.
OPINION
F. E. Wood, the father of two children, who had been under the care of their maternal grandparents, N. F. and Harriet Shaw, on July 26, 1911, brought action in the district court asking to be awarded their custody. His petition was denied, and he appeals.
The mother of the children died March 30, 1907, one of the children, a boy, being then two years old, and the other, a girl, but four days old. From that time they lived with their grandparents, the respondents. In the following October the father and the grandparents executed a written contract which recited that the latter had assumed the care of the children because of their love for their dead daughter, and agreed to give them proper care suitable to their station in life. The agreement included provisions that the father should pay one hundred dollars a year toward their support; that he should have a right to visit with them at any time he might desire, to take them with him at all reasonable times, and to enjoy their companionship as fully as possible under the circumstances, care being had to promote their best interests; that he did not permanently surrender all his rights as a parent over the children, and that the grandparents understood that they were not given permanent control of them; that the children might remain with their grandparents until they were fourteen years old. In February, 1910, the father remarried. On several occasions thereafter he desired to take the children with him temporarily, but did not do so because of objections made by Mrs. Shaw, upon grounds connected with their welfare, which she regarded as sufficient. Some disagreement followed. In July, 1911, he took the children for a drive, leaving the impression that he would return with them shortly. He kept them over night. The next day she retook them during his absence. He then brought this action.
The grandparents are now about sixty years of age. The evidence shows that they have provided a good home for the children and given them every care and attention. There seems to be no ground for criticism of their conduct, beyond the fact that Mrs. Shaw caused the boy to be enrolled in school under the name of Nattie Shaw instead of Nattie Wood, and may at times have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Jackson
...and fifth, the welfare of the child is ever and always the paramount issue. Thirty-three years later, in 1914, we decided Wood v. Shaw, 92 Kan. 70, 139 P. 1165, the father had delivered a son, two years old, and a baby girl, four days old, to the custody of their grandparents, the parents o......
-
McGuire v. McGuire
...but a few of our many decisions in support of the rule: In re King, 66 Kan. 695, 72 P. 263, 67 L.R.A. 783, 97 Am.St.Rep. 399; Wood v. Shaw, 92 Kan. 70, 139 P. 1165; Crews v. Sheldon, 106 Kan. 438, 186 P. 498; Jendell v. Dupree, 108 Kan. 460, 195 P. 861; In re Kailer, 123 Kan. 229, 255 P. 41......
-
Christlieb v. Christlieb, 40022
...but a few of our many decisions in support of the rule: In re King, 66 Kan. 695, 72 P. 263, 67 L.R.A. 783, 97 Am.St.Rep. 399; Wood v. Shaw, 92 Kan. 70, 139 P. 1165; Crews v. Sheldon, 106 Kan. 438, 186 P. 498; Jendell v. Dupree, 108 Kan. 460, 195 P. 861; In re Kailer, 123 Kan. 229, 255 P. 41......
-
Wood v. Lee
... ... give it to them. In fact at her age she was not capable of ... making a binding contract, and besides, the custody of the ... child is not a matter to be determined [123 Kan. 671] by ... contract. (Chapsky v. Wood, 26 Kan. 650; Wood ... v. Shaw, 92 Kan. 70, 139 P. 1165; In re Kailer, ... 123 Kan. 229, 255 P. 41.) ... In view ... of the fact that there was no adoption of the child nor any ... legal proceedings awarding its custody to the Lees or anyone ... else, the natural parent has the superior right to its ... custody, ... ...