Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1917-08-08
PARENT AND CHILD.
Lecture by Prof. E. M. Rucker,
MI y Law Instructor of the
University of South
Carolina.

This is the third of series of
lectures by Prof. f. Marion Rucker
f5he law school of the university
orsthe subject of domestic relations,
delivered before the summer school
of Winthrop, the university, North
Carolina State Normal and the
University of Georgia. The at
tempt here, on account of space, is
not to reproduce the entire lecture
bur. to state the general points
covered.
The law, so far as it deals with
the duties of parent to child and
child to parent, only recognizes the
obligations during the minority of
the child. The relationship auto
matically ceases upon the part of
boAS when the child arrives at the
age of 81. Though affection and
respect continue to keep these duties
active COR much longer period, in
fact through life, nevertheless, in
the eyes of the law, no legal duty
exists on the part of either after
that time. Nor can an action be
entertained against the parent to
hold him liable for the support of
child who has attained majority
nor5by the parent for the earnings Of
suchfa child.
Allchildren fall within one or
two classes. They are either legiti-
mate or illegitimate, and all are
legitimate whose parents were mar
ried at any time prior to the birth
of the child; the law strongly leans
towards holding the children to be
legitimate, so much so that it re-
jects any and all evidence--however
strong and convincing it may be
tending to show illegitimacy when
the husband and wife lived together
and the courts will hold, in the abb
sence of proof to the contrary, that
a marriage had taken place between
the; aIFents in norder that the child
ren 1Say be held iliegitimate. = se
The parents are charged with the
discipline or rearing of the children
and may infict such punishment as
in their opinion is just, for which
punishment under no circumstances
are they liable in an action for dam
ages to child, even though the pun
ishment was unreasonable or even
brutal. The law does not permit a
rebellious and defiant child to stand
in the presence of his parent and to
threaten an action for damages for
impending chastisement. On the
other hand in cases of extreme pun
ishment, the parent may be punished
in the criminal courts.
1t is the duty of the fathers to
protect the child-not merely pas
slve right, but an active duty, and
in so doing he may plead self-de-
fense just as much so as he could to
violence offered his own person.
Teachers stand in loco PARENTS
and may infict corporal punish
ment, but with this distinction, that
they are liable for excessive punish
ment.
1t is the duty of the father to sup
port the child; there is no such duty
upon the mother as long as the
father lives and this is true though
the father be poor and the mother
rich. The law looks only to him
as long as be lives and turns only
to her after his death.
But in New Hampshire, Vermont,
Illinois, New Jersey and Indiana, it
has been held that there is no legal
duty upon the parent to support the
child, that such duty is only moral.
This remarkable view, however,
has not been adopted in the other
states and it is generally accepted in
all the other states that the duty is
a legal one. Now as to the measure
of the support due by father to
his child, it is quite different from
the duty due by husband to his
wife. In that case the wife is en-
titled to that kind of support which
is compatible with his financial and
social standing and provided the
purchases she makes for her ap-
parel are not in excess of this he is
liable and can be forced to pay and
this though he may have given no.
tice that be would not pay, for the
reason that he cannot limit his
liability, incurred by his marriage
contract.
But the only duty he owes his
child is to furnish it seasonable
clothing and wholesome food, and
both of these may be of the very
plainest character and if he does so
he has discharged his full legal duty