Wood v. Wood

Decision Date23 July 1910
Citation77 A. 91,77 N.J.E. 593
PartiesWOOD v. WOOD.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Appeal from Prerogative Court.

Proceedings by Jessie A. Wood against Mary Wood for adoption of Loretta Wood. A decree of adoption was reversed by the Prerogative Court, and petitioner appeals. Reversed on opinion of Orphans' Court.

Alfred F. Stevens, for appellant.

Frank R. Bradner, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Jessie A. Wood, the appellant, presented to the orphans' court of the county of Essex a petition praying that she be authorized to adopt her minor niece, Loretta Wood, pursuant to the provisions of "An act concerning minors, their adoption, custody and maintenance" (P. L. 1902, p. 259), as amended in 1905 (P. L. 1905, p. 272). The application was resisted by the mother of the child, the present respondent, and, after a full hearing, the prayer of the appellant's petition was granted and a decree of adoption made. From this decree the mother appealed to the Prerogative Court, and that court, after hearing, reversed the decree of the orphans' court. The present appeal is from the decree of reversal.

Our examination of the case satisfies us that the conclusion reached by the Essex orphans' court was entirely justified by the proofs submitted, and for the reasons set out in the following opinion of Ten Eyck, J., filed in that court:

"Loretta Wood, a child now 12 years old, is the niece of the petitioner, being the child of her brother Robert Wood. Until 1902 all the parties lived in Summit. The petitioner and her sister then moved to Newark and have since lived there, the sister (Mary Wood) having a position as forewoman in a shirt factory, and the petitioner keeping house and assisting in the work brought home from the factory by her sister. Together they make from $12 to $14 per week. They are apparently people of refinement and have a comfortable home. Before they came to Newark in 1902, they had always bought Loretta clothes and were very fond of her; she staying with them in the daytime and going home at night. When they moved to Newark their brother brought Loretta down and asked them to take her and bring her up and have her educated. The aunts testified that he then said his wife would not look after her properly, and that the mother often said, 'You can do better by her than I can.' At that time he bad two other smaller children. Loretta was then six years old. She occasionally visited her parents, but thereafter lived with her aunts. Afterwards two other children were born to her parents. Loretta's mother never made any objection to her staying with her aunts and seemed to be satisfied with the arrangement In December, 1905, the father died, leaving his widow nothing except about $500 insurance. She kept a boarding house about six months, and since then has supported the family by working out at laundry and other work, making $10 or $12 a week. The two youngest children she put in the Fresh Air Home, as she was obliged to be away all day; the two next younger than Loretta went to school and had to look after themselves, get their own lunch, and do what they could of the housework. Soon after the father's death, Miss Mary Wood was at Summit and said to a Mrs. Ross, who lived in the same house with Mrs. Wood (Loretta's mother) that she hoped Mrs. Wood would not take Loretta away from them. Mrs. Ross reported this to Mrs. Wood, who came and told Miss Mary Wood that she need not be afraid, that she would never take her 'because you can do 'better by her than I can.' The mother admits that Mrs. Ross told her about Mary Wood speaking to her, but denies that she then said anything about it to Mary Wood. She says that she did say to Mrs. Ross, 'I didn't have any intention of taking her just yet.' The mother continued to allow Loretta to stay with her aunts, making no objection until June, 1908, when she wrote, saying she wanted her and her sister Lucy (who was also then with the aunts) to come back to her. The only reason she gives for making this change is that Bertie (the next oldest child) had had to 'rough it'; she thought Loretta ought to do the same. She says the reason why she allowed her to remain was because she knew the aunts were fond of her and she didn't want to hurt their feelings. She says she always had objected to Loretta's going to her aunts to live, from the first, but admits she never made any objection, because she wanted to keep peace in the family and knew she would have her say some day.

"After the father's death, the third eldest child, Lucy, was also taken by these two aunts and kept about two and a half years, a third aunt paying her expenses for board and clothes; the second eldest, Bertie, then being the only one remaining with the mother, and the two youngest being in the Fresh Air Home. The aunts made no objection to Lucy's going back, but wished to keep Loretta. They told the mother if she insisted on taking her that they would charge board at $3 a week for the six years. They said they did this only because they thought it would induce the mother to leave her with them, as they knew she had no money. In November the mother went, with another woman, to the public school, and when Loretta came out the mother, by advice of her counsel, took her and compelled her to go with her. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Sees v. Baber
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 27 Julio 1977
    ..."a settled purpose" to repudiate parental status. Winans v. Luppie, 47 N.J.Eq. 302, 305, 20 A. 969 (E.&A. 1890); Wood v. Wood, 77 N.J.Eq. 593, 77 A. 91 (E.&A. 1910). The concept of abandonment foreshadowed the later statutory standard of "forsaken parental obligations." In re Jacques, 48 N.......
  • Lavigne v. Family & Children's Soc. of Elizabeth
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 24 Marzo 1952
    ...was seven years of age at the time of the application for custody was made and had been abandoned for seven years. In Wood v. Wood, 77 N.J.Eq. 593, 77 A. 91 (E. & A.1910), the child was 12 years of age at the time application for custody was made; in Richards v. Collins, supra, the child ha......
  • M, Application of
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 7 Mayo 1962
    ...after the mother had evinced a total disregard for the child both before and for some time after its birth; and Wood v. Wood, 77 N.J.Eq. 593, 77 A. 91 (E. & A. 1910), where the court, in reinstating the decree of the orphan's court, agreed with the trial judge that although there was 'no Ac......
  • Gardner v. Hall
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • 23 Junio 1942
    ...parent who has abandoned a child is not necessary to its adoption, was held in Ex parte Kirschner, N.J.Ch, 111 A. 737, and in Wood v. Wood, 77 N.J.Eq. 593, 77 A. 91. See, also, P.L.1902, p. 259, P.L.1905, p. 272, R.S. 9:3-4, subsec. c, N.J.S.A. 9:31, subd. c. Also in Winans v. Luppie, 47 N.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT