The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-01-05
4 MOTHERS RIGHTS.
Asa Matter of Law, She Should
Possess the Child.
TIE CASE OF ANNIE REoER.
che rs still with Mrs. Hendricks, With
whom she say she Would
Rather Stay.

ra.tle Annie Roger, who Is the cause
- eoptention between Mrs. Cusack, her
r.asfer. and her foster mother, Mrs. Mar
~aret E. Hendricks still remains with the
I.t4eec but Judge Osborn yesterday gus
.,,ued demurrer To the return OF Mrs.
Esadricks, which said in substance THAI
80 law gave the mother eight to pos
ssssion OF the child. Annie would have
s4sn compelled 10 have gone to her moth
ar only that Attorney Biting obtained
,arrrdgsfon TO file an amended return and
I'll agat the case Stil harder, as he
,hlnks he has more facts in his posses
s.ou Judge OSBORN refused TO take the
es,la from Airs. Hendricks pending a
snsI DECISION in the case, but granted
Ma cusack the privilege OF seeing her
vhen she desired. he said that if all
things were equal, from legal stand
ralnt be would have considered the de-
8 slres OF the child 10 remain permanently
win Mrs Hendricks.
Attorney Hart, in demurring to the re-
turn Of the writ, said that the contract set
out In part In the answer was against pub
liz policy, even admitting that such q con-
,y1rf had ever been entered into. He also
eontended that the contract violated the
common law. and was against the natural
rights OF the mother, the common law
holalng that the rights OF a father to the
being a Fl person. was a sacred trust del
egated to him by law and given to him by
COD, and one which he could not by any
contract dlyest himself of. Nor could ne
relieve himself OF the obligation deYolv-
tns upon him by virtue Of his parentage,
ana the law OF this state gave 10 the moth
e. at the father death, the same control
hat father has during his life. The
above being the common law. as modified
a ha bar 81
sizht OF control. Cases were cited from
California, New York. Missouri, New Jer-
esy. New Hampshire, Vermont and other
states.
1T Is true" said Mr.. Hart, "the para
rsount consideration Is the welfare OF the
child, but the legal rights of the parent to
eustodianship should never be dfsregarded
or overlooked. in the case at bar there
has been no abandonment or neglect of
the child. The return itself shows that the
mother has been continuously with her
and has associated with her for fourteen
years X further shows that every act
which the respondent has done for or to-
ward the child has been done with the
knowledge, consent and approval OF this
petitioner all OF which facts are incon-
ssstsnt with the abandonment or neglect
Of the child The chiId's wishes, even
should desire to go with the respondent,
are not to be considered as against the
natural rights OF the mother, for IL Is
conceded, both by the law OF this state
and by the return made. that the mother
10 good, capable person, and is in every
vay worthy TO have the custody of the
ehild. The mother has labored for years
az the support of the child. and should
the child now desire to leave the mother
rs Judgment is swayed by undue infiu-
eaces. exercised by the respondent. In a
Mississippi case a boy - years old was
Promised a horse IL he would remain away
from his mother. and he elected to go
with the respondents. but the court held
that the whims and wishes OF childhood
should not be used SO as TO assist the child
TO violate its duty TO the parent. This
cliild Is IL years old. and though she IL In
ausnced by respondents with the promise
Of trip TO California and otherwise, her
wishes should not be considered. No per-
con who has the gratitude which proper
training should ineulcate in a child should
s-eet % leave mother who had spent