Litchfield enquirer., 1870-03-10


 of children from the father, guardian, mas ter, charitable institution, or adopted pa- rent, who may have legal right to their custody.
 r 6.-1he peculiar Aarshness of the law of Connecticut .l
 Not only has the father or guardian been authorized, in many cases, to deprive the mother of the society of her children, without her consent, and without any mis- conduct on her part; but to the severity of the common law, are added certain pecu liar features, resting on our statutes and decisions, which materially increase her legal responsibilities, and yet give her no additional rights. By common law she was only responsible for the support of her children when she had the means for, their maintenance. By our statute, when ever she becomes free to act, by the death of her husband, divorce from him, or oth- erwise, she becomes liable to imprison- ment in the poor house, unless she SUD- port them although she has no property whatever. Then, too, by the decision of our highest court, she is declared equally responsible for their support with the father, tcontrary to the rule of the common law, as was conclusively shown by Judges Ellsworth and Storrs in their dissenting opinion in Finch vs. Finch, and contrary to the usual practice in this country, as appears from Professor Parsons work on contracts IVol. l. p. 308]. Our courts and legislators seem to have forgotten that if the mother is to be saddled with equal re- responsibilities with the father, she ought to have some, at least, of his rights; that the law which enables the father, tue guardian, tue master, the charitable institution, and even the State Reform School to tear the child from her arms cannot justly pun ish her with imprisonment in the aims house. should it come to want.
 Least of all does it seem just that if the mother, with nature tempting her so strongly, should entice away her children, ''with intent to detain or conceal them from any of those to whom the law may give their custody, she should be sentenc- ed to the State Prison not less than two years! Ought not shorter term to satis- fy the law, should she ''malioiously decoy" them from so ill-favored 8 step.mother as the State Reform School?
 The Law of Mother and Child is very characteristic branch of the Law of Mar riage. That closest and tenderest of all relations-the motherhood" that forms the basis of so much of the rhetoric of the modern advocates of woman's subjection- seems to have been overlooked by our law makers in the desire to secure the absolute authority of the husband and father. It is tie that he can break at pleasure, and which, after his death, lies completely at the mercy of the testamentary guardian. and the judge of probate. If the father tires of the support of his children, he may indenture them to 8 master or ''sur- render" them to the charitable association, without her consent. If father and moth CT disagreee, and son takes the part of the mother, the father may, in effect. sen- tence him to the Reform School, to herd with the criminals in that institution; or, after dspriying the mother of the society of her children during his life, he may by will, leave the legacy of his spite to a testamentarv guardian. Then, upon the death of the father-no superior right oi indentured master. charitable association, State Reform School, or testamentary guar dian, superyening-the mother may apply to the court of probate (before which she has no legal preference. whatsoever, fol the guardianship of her children. If they are girls twelve years of age, or over, ol boys of fourteen, they may choose thei own guardians. If under that age, tn. mother will, by our usual practice, at las attain, while they remain within the limits of the state, to some real authority over the children she has borne and nurtured and whom, by law, she must maintain Should the court of probate refuse her re quest, or should she be living apart from her husband, by divorce or by reason o his cruelty and abandonment, her rights as a parent are, as we have seen, of an ex tremely ill-deRned and precarious nature And, finally. by a remarriage she ma, forfeit all legal right to the custody of hel children, and lose all power to contribute to their support.
 The neglect with which the law treats the mother seems even more cruel than its harshness towards the wife. It gives eacl infinite duties and infnitessimal rights but when we remember how much more her children cost the mother than the fath CT, we cannot but feel indignant that SC much of the gushing tenderness of conser vatism should have found it's way into DO etry; so little into the statute book. We look there in vain for anything ap. Iproaching thorough reform. What sligh alleviations of any moment our assembled male wisdom has yet devised, are to bt