Norwich bulletin., 1922-09-28
FAILED TO PROVE PARENTS
 WE'RE IMPROPER CUsToDIANs


 In his memorandum Of decision award ing the custody of 14 year old Rose Brothers to her parents, Mir and Mrs. Edward J. Brothers of Cranston, R. l., Judge Newell Jennings stated that MT. and Mrs. Erastus Wilbur of Noank, who have had the care of the child for most of the time for number of years, had failed to prove that the parents were improper custodians to have her now that they had appealed to have her given othem by a court order.
 Judge Jennings advised both parties that the girls preferences as to where she wanted to be should be given some consideration.
 Judge Jennings decision follows:
 Appeal from an order of the probate court fex the district of Groton passed on the fifth day of July, 1922. This order finds that the probate court had jurisdic- ton of the case, and that the appellants are unfit persons to have charge of Rose Il Brothers, a minor. now II years ot age, and appoints Erastus F. Wilbur of Noank guardian of the person and estate of said minor.
 Two questions arise on this appeal:
 First, that of the Jurisdiction of the probate court, and therefore of this court to entertain the application, and
 Second. the issue as to whether or not the parents Of Rose H. Brothers, appel ants in this proceeding, are fit persons to have charge of said child.
 Probate Court Has Jurisdiction.
 The appeal in this case arises from the assurance of the order above referred to and the preliminary proceeding referred to in the reasons of appeal have no bear. ing -on the, decision of this case. fint that under the statute, Sections 4S60 48s1, the probate court for the district O Groton had jurisdiction sof the appica ton. The wording of the statute ant of the cases cited in support of it clearly bears out this contention made by the ap 1 pei!ees. The important sentence deter 1 mining this is the last section of 4Ss 1 'the district within which minor re | sides shall be determined by the minor actual residence and not by the residenc l of the parents or guardian of such min 1 or" (Kelsey vs. Green, e9 Conn. 3011 l The second question relative to the fiji 1 ness of the appellants to act as guardIa of such minor is not free from difficult. l It seems that since the minor was fou years of age she has spent more tim 1 with the appellee than with the appe ] lants. All of her schooling has been ae | Quircd while at the home of the appelle' She has been kindly treated there. an has undoubtedly formed ties of affeetio 1 for her home in Noank. On the ethe hand her parents have never surrendere her custody to the appellee; their daugf ter has spent nearly ali her vacatio at the home of her parents. In fact, tn entire summer vacation prior to the 1T gtitution of the various proceedings fl
 ally culnninating in the trial Of tn | appeal was spent with her parents ] I Cranston, apparently to the satisfactie of all parties in interest Tn the fall 1921, and after the child had starte going to school in Cranston in aecort ance with the announced decision of h, parents to keep her home. some troub apparently arose. the source Of whie
 is not entirely clear. About the first October, Rose, the child, surreptitious
 left her parents nome, and after spen,
 ing some time with neighbors and frien,