Evening star., 1939-08-03
Court Threatens
Contemplation
In Baby Case
Counsel Reveals
Child Now Out of
Jurisdiction

escaped contempt of court proceed
ings today when she failed to bring
into District Court a 4-month-o
girl she had been ordered to produce
under a writ of habeas corpus.
Justice T. Alan Goldsborough in
formed Mrs. Grover through her at
torney that what she was doing
practically amounts to kidnapping
an infant"
The woman had been ordered to
produce the infant girl by Justice
Oscar R. Luhring on the petition
OF the child's parents, Mr.. and Mrs.
Raymond Thorne of East Riverdale,
Nd. who had charged in their petit
ton for a writ of habeas corpus that
they had surrendered their daughter
to Mrs. Grover under the impression
that her interest was purely
charitable.
Later, they had charged. they
learned that Mrs. Grover and Oscar
L. Grover ARE engaged in the prac-
t1ce Of obtaining and placing infant
children as profit-making enter
prise for gain"
Before Mrs. Growers counsel, H. L
Mccormick, had an opportunity to
say anything to the judge, Justice
Goldsborough declared that the an
swer given by the Growers to the pc
tition was simply an evasion of the
courts order" and didn't state where
or In whose custody the child now is.
In Another Jurisdiction.
That. answer in itself constitutes
contempt of court. and the counsels
also are in contempt" the justice
said. The court is not going any
further today. If this defendant will
cooperate with the court in pro-
ducing the infant, she can probably
purge herself of the contempt"
When Mr.. Mccormick tried to in
terrupt. Justice Goldshprough waved
him away with. Il hope she knows
the seriousness of the position she's
in"
Although Justice Goldsborough had
made no reference to Mrs. Grover S
actions when she appeared before
him as witness yesterday in an
other case involving the custody of
child, today he said. severely:
The court has nothing to do
with the business she engages in as
long as the law allows her to do it
But when she takes the position
that she is all-wise and that she
can decide matter which the law
says should be decided by the court,
she is not protected by any Law any
where. any time"
In the answer counsel for Mrs.
Grover had stated that the child
was now in another jurisdiction, but
failed to give the name of the peo-
pie in whose custody she is or specify
the jurisdiction. Mr.. Mccormick
told the court he hesitated to say
openly who had the child, but that
he would be glad to coafide to the
court the name of the adopting
parents.
Not Her Responsibility.
Mr.. Mccormick explained that
Mrs. Grover did not think the name
should be revealed in open court,
to which the judge replied, That's
not her responsibility
At that point, Mr.. Mccormick ap-
preached the bench with a letter
which the judge promptly read. He
then looked up and announced:
The court has unwittingly erred
The court stated that Mrs. Grover
and her counsel were in contempt
He didn't at that time have the let
ter written to the present GUS
todian."
Justice Goldsborough then read
aloud the letter, which was dated
yesterday, August 2, and addressed
to Albert Tilt, jr, Round Hill, Conn
In the letter, Mrs. Grover advised
the prospective foster parents to
bring the baby into court or she
might be held in contempt of court.
He forestalled discussion of Mr.. Nc
Cormick as to the relative rights of
the real parents and the foster par
ents in the case. and declared, "The
courts opinion is that Mrs Grover
can get that child here if she wants
to, and the court is going to set the
hearing for next Tuesday at 10
am"
With Well-to-DO People.
During the discussion over whether
the present location of the child
should be mentioned in court. the
justice declared, This is to me un-
thinkable. The idea of poor little
child, months old, not having any
one come into court and say where
she is"
In the answer filed by Mrs.
Growers counsel, it was stated that
the child was surrendered by its
parents May S and turned over to
its foster parents on May 9. The
answer also stated that the child is
now with comparatively well-to-do
people.
Although Mr.. Grover was also
named as a respondent in the petit
tion, all the judges remarks were
directed at Mrs. Grover.
In the Thornes' petition it was
stated that while Mrs. Thorne was
i'll and the family under temporary
domestic stress the parents had sur
rendered their daughter, born March
81, but that when they learned more
about the Growers they made re-
peated demands for the return OF
their child. They said they had
signed certain papers of which they
do not know the full import. They
said they had been married in 1924
and have five children.
Traffic Record