Norwich bulletin., 1922-10-05
JUDGE GIVES CUSTODY
 OF CHILD TO MOTHER


 By decision handed down Wednesday in the habeas corpus case brought by Thomas J. Pfeiffer of this city against his wife, Lucia Matthews Pfeiffer, to get possession of their five year old daugh- ter, Elizabeth. Judge Newell Jennings of the superior court wives the custody of the child to the mother, but directs that the child shall be allowed to visit it's father during the summer and Christ mas school vacations.
 In his memorandum of decision judge Jennings says:
 The parties to this action were mar ried in February, 1917. Their child was born in August of the same year. Their relations have rRser been pleasant for any extended period of time. The hus- band complains of unwarranted interfer- ence by the wife's father, and the wife of abuse and lack of support.
 The wife has left the husband twice, and the second time brought an action for divorce on the ground of intolerabIe cruelty, in which she was not success | ful.
 l After the action for divorce had been tried. the wife under an agreement made at the time, obtained the custody of the child. The husband then brought habeas corpus, the matter on trial. When I was entered into by the parties person. ally, which is exhibit A in this case The terms of this rather complicated arrange ment were carried out until the last de- l livery to the matter. The father failed to deliver the child to the mother on the opening of school in September, 1922 and retained its custody, tends these cir. ! cumstances the case comes to trial Il
 does not seem to me that the petitioner having possession of this child through 1 and under stipulation entered into ir
 this case and in this court, which he has failed to carry out. can in good faith
 avail himself of the fact that althougf he is the petitioner in habeas corpus ht actually has the physical custody of ths child which was the subject of the writ
 The parties are here and have tried tn,
 case on its merit, and the court has juris
 diction to dispose of the matter on tn, merits.
 I The form of decree where the issue il . the custody of child as between par ents equally fitted to care for 1t il
 habeas corpus proceedings does not ap } preeiate to have been passed on by tn court of last resort in this state. Tn opinion in Durham vs. Durham, g f Conn. 440-403 clearly indicates that tn method of procedure is proper
 While in general the object of a wri . in habeas corpus is to set at large thos
 illegally restrained of their liberty. whe n the subject of the writ is a child tn
 court may take the question of illegs |. restraint from one person and hand 1 oyer to another.
 Judge Jennings gives a number C authorities for this ruling, and says ths f in the case last cited Lord Mansfield sai
 that he would be justified under the cil l. cumstances of that case in sending tn child to a specified boarding school If ths :. seemed to be for It's best interest. Tn il American courts appear to have adopte . the reasoning of this case rather tha - that of the later English decisions. Both parents are apparently attache V to the child and no question is raise as to the fitness of either to care for i if Under these circumstances, the welfal s of the child Is the sole consideration S . While with the father, the child will ]. cared for by his. the fathers mothe While with the respondent. 1t will l |. cared for by its own mother. Both pa . ents should be allowed to keep in tout d with the child and to keep it's affectic s if they can. In my opinion the best il v terests of the child, who is only fl ., years old, will be served by awardir v the custody to the respondent, but 2 \. lowing 1t to visit the petitioner for Il ,t> period of the Christmas and sumni .' school vacations.
 !. Such an order may be entered al q served on the father
 Terms of Stipulation ar The stipulation referred to by Jud rs Jennings was made December 21, 1sg Id and provided that the father should ha H. possession of the child from that da
 until March Is. 1922. except for the d, a after Christmas, 1921. From March ] It. 1923 to June Is. 1929, 1t was to be wi to the mother and from the last date to t ,n beginning Of the school year. about Sc ae tember l. 1922, with the father, at whi ae time new arrangements were to H. agreed u2on.