Litchfield enquirer., 1870-03-10

I suit, or where she is living separate, ''by reason of the abandonment oI truelty of the husband" the court may grant her custody of her children.* Ry. Stats. 3O7 Secs. 3S and 39). It is also provided by statute that in case the husbad leave the state, and make no suitable 1rovision for his children, at the end of tHb years after. such abandonment guariiA may be ap- pointed, and his parental authority will cease. Pub. Acts '66-'6s. t).
 Our highest court aving deci- ded in 1853 2 (Fsnch vs. 5E3iacb above cited) that, upon a diprce mother and father are equally lia,le for the support of their children, ourstate legisla- ture passed an act, in the fotowing year, authorizing the court in sucl case to in- quire into the pecuniary abilEy of the re- spective parties, and apportDn the main tenance of children accordingly. The di- vorced wife, as we'll as thj widow, would unquestionably be liable to- ba treated as a pauper and consigned to tho poor house as such, if she failed to maintain the chil- drsn. (Rev. Stats. 621 Seq 19.)
 One of the greatest sources of annoy ance to the wife living apart,is owing to the fact that no agreement she can make with her husband, giving her the custody of her. children. will bind hin so that he cannot afterwards reclain them. In Mercein vs. 7ze People 6 Hn 422), it was held that written agreement to that ef- feet would not prevent his changing his mind and demanding possession of his chil- dren.
 3.-1Ae authority ef e soid0o oUer her chil- dren. -a. .as
 Upon the death of the husband the wife becomes liable for the support of their chil- dren, in case they have no property, and even to be treated as a pauper if she fail to maintain them. But her rights over those children are far inferior to those of the father. So late as 1866 our highest court decided (Macready vs Wilcox, B Conn. 321) that guardian had right to the custody of the child in preference to it's mother. Guardians may be appoint ed by the father, by will. Ray Stats. 314 Sec. 73); ar by the court of ssrobate; or by choice of the minor if Of sufficient age, ratified by the court of probate. (Rev. Stats. 312 Secs. 65 and 66) Guardians, so appointed, have the same power for in denturing their wards to the State Reform School and to masters, without consent of the mother that the father would have if alive. While it is expressly provided that the father and master shall not be depri- ved of their contr over the persons of their children. or apprentices, by the appointment of 8 guardian (Sec. 69 no provision is made in this State, as in Massachusetts, to secure the mother any such right. Mi. nors over fourteen years of age, having no father or guardian, can indenture them selves without their mothers consent lSec. 94) In short the power of a widow over her children would seem to be little more than that of any other person in whose hands they might remain after their fathers death.t It is doubtful whether any of the many species of common law guardianships are recognized in her favor by the laws of Connecticut.t While main taining them, she is unquestionably enti. tied to their services and obedience. "Ii it be intended to declare" say the court in the late case of Pray vs. Gorham (31 Me. 242), ''that the mother is entitled to the earnings of the minor child in the same manner that the father, when alive, was entitled to them, the position cannot be sustained" and, in view of the decisions. il would seem that the minor child, of an age to earn it's own livelihood, may repudiate tht maternal authority in more ways than by choice of guardian or master.
 In case widow marries, her second bus band is not liable for the support of hi step children, and the mother loses what ever right she may have before had to tn, custody of the children of her former mar riage. That right, say the court. in Stat vs. Scot 10 Foster 277l .'is wholly lost ane disappears when the mother, surviving has by second marriage surrendered tha legal discretion which is necessary to ren der the parental control of benefit to the child"
 6.-Criminal liability efthe mother. # sh inssfsrs '0ith de legal custodian ef her chil drsa.
 Persons having the legal custody of chil dren are protected in their rights by the severest penal laws, which may. it would seem, be enforced against the mother a, we'll as against any stranger who should interfere with those rights. Should an, person "eloign," or entice away an appren tice, from the service of his master the, become liable to fine. and to Imprisonment
 *In such case, also, the power of appointing testamentary guardian, devolves on the wife. (fte vised Stats 315. Sec. 7S.)