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

disability, BY which he is disqualified or una
BILE to perform the duties Of the relation which
he holds, naturally and legally TO the child, "
certainly is competent Tor the proper tribunal
to assume and exercise such wardship. THIS,
however, will not be done, where no such dis
ability exists. Such action by The court would
be IN derogation of the patcrnal rights. aud
duties 1t would tend to render .he duties OF
the court onerons; and, whilst u would IN
many cases, release reckless parents from one
vi the sacred bonds by which they are held to
social duty, in others 1t would rcnd asundcr
the ties of natural affection, by which lifes
darkest hour may be made endufablc.What are
the facts OF this case. as cerijecd by the Dis.
trict Judge,o record heyGf ~ IS expressly sta
ed that the father and lnbther pre- botH Hrapaoie
aud able tOtake ChNfge of the child. anu "
support il The ehild is now abusst;hye years
old; md therafpre may be separated from s!hc
me- hef without dong yiulence - ~ on kne
49, paA ssse y .s. 49,
.cssss~e 90 noe ste auyt"'"s WI
PS'y the aPpiicatlon o. ms Princ'Pie =. Wa'u
ship IN thls case. Inc riShs o' .ie la'ne' ~
the possession and cohtfoi Oh .he person oi nis
minor chi'd, when ms disao,,i'y IS hos es'"n, ~,
iisheu, IS paramount See "ooa o"o ~" 'u =,
A'a, too; Jehhlson vs. Craves~,pia sfppel'
W; naiinoack, "iishe, ~,
IN England l.le courts nave oosc,'eu b'ca.
caution III reference TO the rights anu uu.ies o'
fathers 40 relation to Their infant chiidreh. ~
le lne case oi TEX vs. 'e MahheviHe' Stn Eas.
~ the court refused to deny the right
70, the iather TO the possession OF ms cn'ia'
lhongh an infant at the breast OF its mother,
lhere being no ground TO iinpute any motive
TO me ia,her, which would oe injurious TO me
child The case OF the People VS. Mercer, "a
Hills Reports 3s9, fully sus,a'ns this doctrine
OF pasernal right: See the opinion 81 The tourt,
pages 4oe and 4o9 fut the decision OF The
Dislrict Court, IN TINS case, was nahe also up
on the ground that, when the decree OF divorce
IN shat couf' was entered, we parties were
present, ahd III the presence oi me court con-
sented to the order,which was then made. CIV
lag the custody OF the infant, Louise, to the
mother; aud Therefore when this application
was heard, the Judge "felt bound to take cog
n,zance OF the fact OF consent, and for this
reason confirmed the original order.
Tins cauno' change aud defeat the lega right
Eof the father to the child, SO as to bar him from
re-assrrting 1t, and claiming the benefit Of il
upon this application. III the father could by
consent, on his part. transfer The legal oblga
Won, under which ie stood, III relation to his
chiid, to the mother aud thus release himself
from Liabilities which result from the marriage
contract Still lhe ORDER, wh,ch we court had
previously made in case Of the child was, as ap
pears oy the record, oniy temporary, leaving
the matter open fpr discretionary action IN The
uiure. ~ was therefore no hna'ttyk 6pt npoi
THIS app,ication IS properly exatninaole,3 40 nj
no, anu ne can mere revoke sueh consent upof
. proper showing. But could he by SUCH con
; seut' OF any agreement, SO usp pose oI MS child
chanSe ms reia.ioh To u, a"d dsnarge him
} seii oi MS opliyatlonsI lE co''s,dsralion o
the iighis aha auues OF the father IN relation
10 ms cni'd' ne coain nor. me case her
before c'ea OF the Teopie W Merceir' 3r'
e iiil . IL, 81, we tnihR iuhy recpghl
!, zes !his principle, Judge DfoAson there
T IN auditlon toWnat Is heid'to be law on TN
$ roiht ny Judge Oowai' says ihe OPINION 9
TINS couis has oeen repeatedly expressed, tha