Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1898-01-13
Madison, January 10.

Judge Carpenter Saturday rendered
a decision in the county court which
is looked on as of the greatest i'm
portance to all adopted children in the
state who have inherited property.
The decision in effect holds that I'M
less the consent of both parents of a
child is obtained to it's adoption, or
both are served with notice of the
petition for the adoption, the adoption
is void There is said to be a large
number of people in the state who
were adopted and whose parents were
unknown as in the case of foundlings,
and children whose parents, or one of
them, were unknown and who were
adopted with the consent of the other
parent. The decision was rendered in
the case of the adoption of little
Bertha Rhyder, who was adopted by
Henry Schroeder several days ago.
Friday the county humane society
asked the court to set aside the adop-
ton, and Judge Carpenter decided that
as the mother of the little girl whose
residence is not known was not served
with notice of the adoption the whole
proceeding is void.
Bertha Ryder is a child about four
years of age. Two years ago it's
mother, Flossie Rhyder, deserted her
husband, J. w. Rhyder, abandoned
the child and has since resided in
parts unknown. After this event the
husband, till then steady fellow, fell
into evil ways and going from bad to
worse brought up a fortnight ago in
felon's cell, condemned to do IS
months under sentence for forgery.
The child for year or more has been
living with its uncle, J. W. Schell, in
the fifth ward. Schell having a large
family desired to find some suitable
home for the child and asked Mr.. and
Mrs. Schroeder to adopt it which
after inspecting the child, they con-
sented to do. The consent of the
child's father was properly obtained,
application was made TO the court and
an order of adoption entered, in
which the facts of the child's aband-
onment by its mother and it's fathers
consent were recited. AS is usual
i'll such cases no attorneys were en-
rloyed and the court proceeded accord
ing to the practice cusJomarily pur-
sued throughout the state.
Objection was made by parties to Mr..
and Mrs. Schroeder retaining the
child, the ground for protecting being
mainly the fact that Mr.. Schroeder
runs saloon in connection with the
Eagle hotel of which he is proprietor.
| AS a result of the two days hearing
and the examination of many wit
nesses the court made not finding
adverse to the character of the
! Schroeders or the suitability of their
home, but disposed of the case on
purely legal grounds. He decided
that under the law as held by the
supreme court in 1893, no adoption
of a child which has a living parent
deprives such parent of its right to
the child unless he or she was
served with notice, actual or con-
structive, to appear in court and con-
sent or object to the adoption. If
such notice has not been given, Judge
Carpenter held that all the adoption
proceedings were taken without juris-
diction, and not only as to the parent
not notified but also as to the child
and the adopting father and mother
are a nullity. If such decision be
sustained as the law it's effect must
be far-reaching, indeed. For probably
in the majority of adoption cases
there has been a living parent not
brought within the jurisdiction of the
court. If in these cases the entire
proceeding was invalid, the parent
has had no real right to the child, the
child has had nor will have no right
to home Or maintenance from its
supposed adopted parents and upon
their death would not inherit.
Doubtless many adopted children have
shared in the distribution of the es-
tates of persons dying without will
who under this ruling, would have nc
right whatever to be considered heirs
The attorneys for Mr.. and Mrs
Schroeder in this case contended that
the supreme court had not laid dowr
so sweeping doctrine. They claimed
that the order of adoption though
made without notice to the absent
mother, either actual or by publica.
ton, was simply irregular as to any
right which that mother might after
wards assert; that she would simply
still be entitled to her "day in court
and that her parental claim could
then be defended only by proof thai
she had actually abandoned her chfIG
prior to its adoption. Judge Carpen
ter also held that the parties who
were seeking to remove the chile
from the Schroeder household haC
no right to a judgment in their favoI
in this proceeding and that its fathel
having consented to it's being lef
with the Schroeders made their Gus
tody of the child lawful. He enjoinet
all parties from interfering with it tx
move it out of the jurisdiction of thu
court and unless other proceeding!
are taken it is likely to remain will
the Schroeders