Evening star., 1953-03-14
Court Rebuffs
D. Agency on
Laws
Jurisdiction Over
Children Placed in
Maryland Claimed
By J. |. MichoeI

day faced a Maryland court
opinion holding that the city
loses jurisdiction over wards
placed with foster parents living
in any section of the Free State.
And if the Welfare Board, in
disagreement with this view, is
inclined to withdraw the several
hundred children now in that
category, it should examine it's
conscience before so doing, Cir
cult Judge Charles C. Marbury
observed yesterday.
The 5;O00-word opinion,
handed down at Upper Marlboro,
also declared a District Juvenile
Court decree awarding guardian
ship of child living in Mary
land to the city Welfare Board,
has no effect.
Minor Entitled to Protection.
"Domicile determines the
court which has Jurisdiction to
appoint a guardian" Judge Mar
bury said, and "a minor is en-
titled to the protection of the
laws of the State where he re-
Sides"
Judge Marbury drew these
conclusions after a lengthy
review of confused MARYLAND
statutes governing adoption
procedures, for which the COM
mon law made no provision.
The courts opinion was given
in case in which the District
Welfare Board sought dismissal
of a Maryland adoption petition
on the claim that a 4-year-old
boy. Donald George, was legally
its charge.
The board, in 1851, placed the
child in the home of Mr.. and
Mrs. George j. Barthel of College
Park under cuStodial agree
ment. Several months later,
District Juvenile Court gave the
board permanent custody.
The Barthels decided to adopt
him but the board would not
consent and said it would take
him back. The foster parents
then filed formally for adoption.
They also asked and were
granted a court order keeping
the boy in their home until the
case is decided.
Jurisdiction Questioned.
In a counter move, the board
contended the Maryland court
was without jurisdiction. It was
on this point alone that Judge
Marbury ruled yesterday.
His decision means that the
case will now be heard on it's
merits and it was pointed out
that District welfare authorities
can at that time contest the
adoption on other than jurisdic-
tional grounds.
POINTING out that District law
bases jurisdiction in such cases
on legal or actual residence of
persons petitioning for adoptions,
without reference to the domi-
cile of the child. the court de-
clared:
Clearly, since petitioners are
not residents Of the District of
Columbia, either legal or actual,
if any court has jurisdiction over
the present petition for adop-
ton. it is this court.
1t certainly cannot be said
that no court has jurisdiction,
nor that petitioners are required
to sever their ties. give up their
Maryland home, and assume a
residence in the District of
Columbia for no other purpose
than to become qualified to adopt
child who has lived in their
home for more than a year and
a half"
Should Guard Interests.
Referring to the boards argu-
ment that it must follow District
statutes and policies while try
ing to improve the lot of its
wards, the court said:
Under the American system,
the courts have little to do with
determination of public policy"
and then emphasized that "the
fundamental premise" of welfare
work is "the best interests of
the children, not as a class but
as individual human beings"
There is no conflict with
Maryland authorities involved in
this case," Judge Marbury said,
NOR should there ever be such
conflict"
Judge Marbury added:
Having failed in it's juriSdic-
tional contentious, the board may
very well reflect whether the best
interests and welfare of the
children placed by it in foster
homes in Maryland will best be
served by withdrawing them
from the advantages of suburban
life in this State and returning
them to urban living conditions
in the District, or by allowing
them to remain where they are
like other children under the
jurisdiction of Maryland courts.
Whatever course the board
decides to take will be a deter
n1ination of public policy to be
made by authorities of the Dis
trict, not of Maryland"