Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1917-08-08
PARENT AND CHILD.
Continued from First Page.)

set mp a different standard for the
child and attempt to hold the father
for it. Not only is this true, but
70, such necessaries as it is the duty
of the father to furnish he can only
be held liable for his failure if the
fact is he is willing to furnish them
to the child no one else can do 80
and recover from the father. If it
is the judgment of the father tina:
his child shall be reared in the most
rigid economy-and this despite the
fact that he is wealthy, the law per-
mits him to do so, and does not al
low any one else to interfere with
his plan of rearing his own children.
As to a wife the rule would be diff.
ferent Cor the wife meets the hus-
band upon terms Of equality and
must be supported according to his
financial ability.
As the parent has to support the
child the law gives to the parent the
earnings of the child during the
child's minority and in this con-
nection it is we'll to note that in the
event the child enters into an agree
ment to work for a stipulated sum,
less than what his services are
reasonably worth, the father is not
bound by the contract but may sue
for the worth of the services render
ed.
when a child suffers personal
injuries through the negligence of
another he may recover for the in
%iuries suffered, but not for loss of
time occasioned thereby as his time
belongs to his father. The father
may bring suit for this and also for
the expenses incurred in his behalf,
including doctors bills, nurses and
medicine.
"Fhe mother is substituted to the
rights and duties of the father only
in the event of the death of the
father or his abandonment of his
family. she then becoming the head
of the house.
I'm an article appearing some
time ago in a largely circulated wo-
mans magazine, The Pictorial Re-
view, the assertion was made that
in this state the father was made
the sole and despotic owner of his
children and might deed them away
but the supreme court held that the
legislature only meant that he could
deed away his own rights and that
as between himself and the one to
whom the grant was made, such a
deed would be binding, but that his
deed could not affect the right of
the mother or of the child.
There is no more important
question that the law is called upon
to settle than the conflicting rights
of father and mother to their child
rem when divorce or separation
makes their interests antagonistic.
Formerly at the ancient common
law there can be nc question that
the rights of the father were para
mount. This was probably due 10
the fact that as the bread earne
was regarded as more capable Of
taking care of the child than the
mother. Subsequently the courts
recognized that for very young
children the mother was more neces-
sary and more capable than the
father and awarded such children to
her. The more recent cases have
attempted, and in general success
fully, to e~qualize the parents in the
claims to their children by provid-
ing that the children shall spend a
portion of each year with each
parent.
"But above and beyond the rights
of the parents the law looks to the
best interest of the child. This is
in fact the controlling consideration
from the standpoint Of the law and
if from the evidence it appears that
either of the parents is an improper
person to entrust the children to,
then the courts award them to the
other.
"As to that unfortunate class of
children known as illegitimate, the
common law rule was that they had
no Unbeatable blood, and therefore
not only could they not inherit from
their parents but the parents could
not inherit from them. That is to
saw that if the mother of an illegetl-
mate child had property and died,
or if an illegitimate child acquired
property, neither could inherit from
the other but in the absence of other