Litchfield enquirer., 1870-03-10
THE LEGAL DISABILITIES OF CON.
 NECTICUT MARRIED WOMEN.

II. s lr@-
 THEIR WANT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY ovEE
 THEIR CHILDREN.
 "A mother, as such," says Blackstone ''is entitled to no power, but only to rev erence and respect" q. BL. Com. 45). So completely is the existence of the wife merged in that of the husband, at common law, that the whole parental authority vests in him alone. Whatever may be the common practice, the law makes wife and children co o-servants of the legal head oi of the family.
 1.- When hwsband and ,cjfe lve togetber.
 In no case that we are aware of is the mother, living with the father, recognized by law as having any legal rights over, or interest in, her children. The father may, if they desire. bind them out as apprenti. ces, during minority, without her consent. (Rev. Stats. 317 Sec. 93). He may also give them away without her consent to va rious charitable associations incorporated in this state. We find, also, on reference to the "Act Concerning Prisons," that a father can, without co nsent of the mother, lndenture his boys to the State Reform School Rev Stats. 632 Sec. 26), # where they will be subject to the same employment, and restraint, as all other inmates of said school" Sec. 29) There might, perhaps, arise question un- der the wording of the statute regulating the giving away of children, in adoption, whether the mothers con- sent would be required; and, practically. the court of probate would hardly assent to such proceeding contra " to her wishes. Should the husband be- come manifestly unfit, from insanity, in- temperance, cruelty or tue like, to have control of his children, guar dian may be appointed over them. (Rev. Stats 313.)
 Yet, notwithstanding the wife's entire want of legal control over her children, her property is in many ways held liable for their support. By statute (Rev. Stats BOA Sec. 20) the rents, profit. and interest of the wife's property are liable to be taken by legal process for debts contracted by the husband '.for the support of the wife and her children" In some cases, even, he may use the principal of her property ':for the support of the wife, or the issue of the marriage" In Finch vs. Finch (22 Conn. All our Supreme Court expressly declare that the parental duty of the moth or is equal to that of the father, in regard to the support of their children, and that during marriage it is suspended, or post poned. only because her civil existence is merged in that of her husband and be- cause her property is all in his hands. Ev- en then, should she have competent sepa- rate estate, and her husband none, court of ehancery would decree a maintenance by the mother. Do. 417 citing Kent. Com. 1922. .-
 Occasionally we read of instances where parents have attempted to throw off all re- sponsibility for infant children by leaving them at the doors, or on the premises, of entire strangers; but such conduct is pun ishable by imprisonment in tho State Pris- on. (Rev. Stats. 250 Sec. 32.) 5,
 2.-When husband and wjfe iive separate.
 Upon separation of husband and wife, the former will be entitled to the custody of their children, unless some positive un fitness. such ss insanity, intemperance cruel treatment or abandonment is proved against him. The common law justified the father in retaining his child by the harsh est means,f and in cases where the wife had been obliged to leave him on accoun of his gross profigacy.t It is not surpris ing that Lord Denman was obliged to sa, in the House of Lords that ''He felt asham cd of the state of the law and that it wa such as to render it odious in the eyes O the country" A statute was subsequently, enacted granting English wives, living separate from their husbands, right of ac cess to.and in some cases custody of, thei children -. In frequent and late American decision the paramount authority of the husban, has been fully recognized. but the mothe has generally been allowed the custody o infant children. so young that they would be likely to suffer without her care.a Ii *The word "parent" in this, and other statute, is construed referring to the father alone, if | is living Ii. he is not, and no guardian has bee appointed, to the mother. ,os4.aa@ fIn the case of Re1 ys. De Manaerile tried befor l the Court of Kings Bench in 1803 the wife ha l separated from her husband, on the ground of al | legged ill treatment and kept her child which wa nursing, with her. The husband got into tn house where she was, forcibly seized the child | then at the breast, and but eight months old, an carried it away almost naked, in an open carriage habeas corpus but the Court decided that tn father was entitled to the custody of the child l5 East. 221). sTI, .... .s- = tn Rer vs Greenlia A A. & E. 624) the mothe had left her husband for adultery, and had sue, for divorce. She had taken away her thre young girls, from two and a half to fiv and half years ot age, and the husban brought writ of habeas corpus to obtain posses living in adultery with Mrs. Graham, from whom he refused to part " while uncertain of rocoy.;