Iowa capitol reporter. [volume] (Iowa City, Iowa) 1841-1855, 1854-08-09

- ~. -. 8 d q, - Y s;e,s 1sySF
| A brief statement ef,A facts Of this case,
as presented by the reoN Of the proceedings
had upan the applicat,upf the appellee, Mary
NJ. G. Hunt, for diyoregis nece ,sary, in or
der to = proper undera3di Of the mattcr iu-
yolved in the present pfaication.
! AT the October tern 1852, of ,he District
Court Of Desmoines canty, Mary NJ. G Hunt
| fed her petition for aditurcc from the bonds
Of matrimony, which atf been contracted be-
tween her and the appellant, John b. Hunt
| The parties appeard for hearing, and the
divorce was decseed, As prayed for. 1T was
made 10 appear TO the Court, that the paities
had three children: wsht the acquiescence of
the parties, the court uderei that the two old
est, being sons, be committed to the care and
custody OF the father and that Louise, the
| Youngest child, should until further order of
the court be made. be consigned TO the care
and keeping OF the moiier. AT that time Louise
was between three and four years cd. Thus
the matter stood until he einaking Of this appli
cation.
The father, John B Iunt nov claims that
the child, Louise, be oriersd n'o his care and
custody, on the following lgroun Is:
! lst That he has the paramount rigl,tto Ser;
End. The inability aid moral unftness OF
the mother to keep andnurture her;
3rd. The danger oil le child contracting n
malignant disease Of th, eyes, which prevails
in the family oe the mohet' 4R8
1t appears by the recGdo the proceedings
| of the application for th, divorce, as we'll as
those OF The custody of aerhiid; all Of which
with the written opiniol u the Judge are here
duly certified, that the parties have been con
sitered as holding a respectable position in the
community. The judgecer flies III his opln
ion, THAT The decree odiyorce was naile on
the ground Of AN obvioss incompatibility in
the lempers and dispositions Of the parties
which made it uecesser Tor their happiness
and well llbeing that the. be separated. Thai
the decree was maze without more blame tc
the one party than thesoher" II also appear'
that the parties conscnte, to the temporary dis
posal Of the children, as ,.ade by the court
The court below in rfnsing To grant III,
prayer Of the father. act.,ion the grounds that
ON the score OF capabiity aud moral fitness 10
the care aud keeping Of tt chisd, the parties
t We're about eqnal, as to qualification Tha
the order first made was bsFcon>en;, and il
eoasiil ration Of the Ho.iilx+ ~ the mnth"r :
In the absence Of any exige,cy, requiring I'll,
removal Of the child from herit should r,,paii
in her custody. That when lhe parties con
sented to the arrangements, which was made al
to the children, they did not act under any le
gal disabi ity, and that The title Of the iahe
was not paranountin las. he court furthe
tDok the ground that the child was a ward II
chancery. and therefore was subject TO it,
discretionary power.
In adjndicating this case, we feel scnsibl,
affected by the consideration OF lis Importance
to our State. The apparent facility with whlci
divorces are to be obtained under The O. de; tL'
frequency cfsuch applications: he rights ane
duties OF parents in relation TO their innocent
helpless and unfortunate offspring, aud thu
community in which they live; the danger o
growing contempt for the eacredness and sol
emn responsibility Of the marriage contract, in,
periously reqlre that the law should be s,
administered, by our courts. that, in addition
to statutory facilty,a greater by construction
may not be afforded. for the reckless and in
moral to abrogate this important principe Q
the social compact
In the present dispute, rights aid interests
OF the most sacred character, are involved, af
fecting the parents,the uEfortunaie infant, ano
the public. We deem II necessary to notice bu
one question as presented here. In consider
ing IL, the TWO other points viii be of cours,
disposed of, without special adjudication a.
separate propositous-which has the para
mount right to the possession OF the person
the care and Keeping of the child Louise? til,
father or mother2
On this subject, the provision Of the Cole i
) as follows:
d III,
make such order in relation 10 the chidrei
and property of the parties, and th. maintain
ance of The wife, rs shall be right and proper
; Subsequent changes may be made by the co,lr
) in these respects, where circumstances rende
them expedent."
This s;o, Ia ,o,..,., :, /, g ,or,,s so IA
os !, ri - :, ,ha ;s ar,h chiIdr.n an,
a. ,.'.t, ~ ~ :, ~ g ~ =, &c,
"Th, ~ -, nal. sr"h ari., as hall h
ryht and nron.r . III ,ls a.csr,ain,nent q
what i "r;gh, and nrn,i,";, i. ,he dnty n
,ba ca,,, 10 .hsarvo ~. es',.l r;,,h,s nf he na
ysn.s ,ha chiId and tho oa'.n,,,;,v Wha
tbcss ara We viii endeavo, hraay .s n,ss,be
to sialas The law III Euel.nd ~
VII ~ a. Il has n,h Efsr,, =
statue. Is 10 force here. 81 .rrhsS
: ing or legal existence of The wotnan
peI,ded durips marriage: or ut lra.t. IL ineol
pora,ed and 'consolida,ed into N 4, ~ ,i,a IN,
band ), IL, Black Com a6a 1h. co,,tro, |,
,he child follows as a conseouence Idem N,
: "a Tie father ba. leyal mower nver ~. cb;l
until !, arrive nj tho oo. ~ tvr,,v ! ono vear
There can be no doubt olihc para,,,oun, rigl
of thc ,a,her To ,he possessiun'care and contr,
: of his minor child. when the child fas tbi, on
, is, IA of sncb ape that il AN without, in;nrv
! y,oIence TO nature. be Withdrawn from mate
/; nal nursing. But the right Of the father
! have its society flial affection, and service.
well as to see to its heath, education. DC. a,
not the only matters for consideration here :