Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-03-25
CHILD IN MOTHERS CARE
FATHER PERMITTED TO VISIT 1T
EVERY DAY.
Result of Hearing Before Justice Cole
in Case of Sticke1
Against Stickel.

In connection with the proceedings for
writ of habeas corpus instituted last Fri
day by Mrs Mamie Stickel for the purpose
of recovering possession of her two-year-
old child, Frederick Stickel, Justice Cole
of the Supreme Court of the District OF
Columbia, after a hearing today, directed
that the mother have the custody of the
child until the further order of the court
The father, Hiram A. Stickel, who was the
respondent to the petition for the writ, Is
given the right to visit the little one every
day.
1t will be recalled that Mrs. Stickel in
her petition, filed through Attorney Camp
bell Darlington, explained that she was
living apart from her husband, and that
the latter had failed to support her or the
child The respondent, so she said, called
at the house where she was living last
Thursday and took away the baby during
her absence He informed her, according
to her version of the affair, that she was
not again to have the custody of the child.
Mrs Stickel further informed the court
that Frederick had but recently recovered
from an attack of scarlet fever and needed
her care it never before having been away
from her.
It was late in the afternoon when the
child was taken before the court. The
hearing was postponed until today, the
subject of the inquiry in the meantime
being placed in the keeping OF the motner.
In responding to the writ Mr.. Stickel was
represented by Attorney Edward l.. GieS
He announced that he was devotedly at
tached to his wife and child, and declareI
that meddlesome relatives of Mrs. Stickci
were doing all in their power to estrange
his wife from him. The couple, SO 1t was
said, had been happy until Mr. Sucker
mother-in-law and brotherS-ln-laW made
up their minds to separate the pair. As s.
cording to Mr. Stickel he was driven out
of the house of his mother-in-law, whcre
he lived with his wife, and had been threat
ened by the brothers of the latter.
Declines to Go With Him.
Mr. Stickel further said that he had re-
peatedly urged his wife to go elsewhere
with him to live, but that she refused, ana
that his mother-in-law had declared that
she would not leave Mrs. Stickel and that
Mrs Stickel should not leave her.
In conclusion, Mr.. Stickel asserted that
the child was more devoted to him than TO
it's mother; that he was amply able to care
for his family and had always done so, ana
that the only hope of effecting reconcll-
alton with his wife was to place the BABY
in his custody.
Assuming the strongest aspect of the case
in favor of the father, remarked Justice
Cole in disposing Of the matter, 1t was
manfestly to the interest OF the chlld 10
remain with it's mother for several years to
come at least, or so long as the mother
cares for it properly. The only possible
reason that could exist for the taking of
the child away from her at this time would
be that the mother was not treating 1t
properly The fathers technical common
law preference to custody must yield to
what is best for the interest of child of
such tender years. When the child has
reached a proper age and it should then be
shown that the mother wrongfully and i'm
properly refused to live with her husband
then the court would be justified, probably,
in changing the custody to the father.
eff Mr.. Stickel in his daily visits to his
child under this order of the court. should
be interfered with by threats of violence or
otherwise" said Justice Cole, in >conclu-
sion, that fact should be called to the at
tention of the court. remedy will be
found for such interference"