Evening star., 1953-05-16
Judge Criticizes
Action Of DC.
Welfare Aides
Attorneys Deny
Adoption Evidence
Wos manufactured
By J. 1. Michoel

~ bVNSts0S0SA0tS SO
By }. 1. MiehoeI
Washington welfare authori-
ties smarted today under sharp
criticism from a Maryland court
which said evidence they intro
duced in an adoption case had
apparently been manufactured"
The remark was made Jester.
day by Judge Charles c. Mar
bury in Upper Marlboro Circuit
Court. It was denied by Welfare
Board Attorneys Blair II. Smith
of Mount Rainier and Ralph D.
Quinter. jr., assistant corpora
ton counsel for the District.
Judge Marbury reaffirmed his
previous ruling that Maryland
courts have jurisdiction over Dis
trict welfare wards placed in
foster homes anywhere in the
State.
Will Authorize Adoption.
He then announced he would
sign a decree authorizing Mr.. and
Mrs. George j. Barthel Of COL
lege Park to adopt 5-year. cid
Donald George and to change his
name to Donald George Barthel.
Welfare Board counsel said
they will decide soon whether
the decision will be appealed. If
it is. they added, it will be for the
primary purpose of obtaining q
higher court ruling on the juris-
dictional question.
Scanning records of the case
which yesterday brought testi-
mony on fundamental social and
religious problems, the court sud-
denly turned toward Mr.. Smith
and began questioning him
sharply.
Judge Marbury wanted to know
why a 1851 District Juvenile
Court order giving the Welfare
Board temporary custody of the
boy had just been submitted.
Obviously much diSpleased. he
reminded Mr.. Smith that he had
ruled on the jurisdictional issue
after hearing arguments at pre-
viouS hearing and had based his
opinion on evidence that did not
include the 1851 order.
Evidence available to him at
that time. the judge said, did in
clude a 1852 District Juvenile
Court order giving the Welfare
Board permanent custody of the
child. That order was signed sew
eral months after the boy had
been placed in the Barthel home.
Sees Wholly New Item.
Declaring that the 1851 COM
mitment looks like it was
manufactured" Judge Marbury
added:
THE court never had any
idea there was any other COM
mitment but that of 1852, and
the ruling was made purely on
what the Welfare Board pro.
duced. Now we have a COM
pletely new item lately brought
in"
Both Welfare Board attorneys
vigorously denied the omission
was prompted by any Interior
motive. Mr.. Smith explained he
had not submitted the 1851 paper
ebfore because he believed it had
been superseded by the 1852
order and was therefore unim-
portant. He moved for a rehear-
ing on the jurisdictional question
but Judge Marbury said:
"The court has ruled that it
does have jurisdiction. We will
not try that point again."
Later MIR. Smith asked dis
missal of the Barthel petition on
the ground the court lacked
jurisdiction, but the court re-
marked that the document
which Should have been but was
not filed would not in any way
vitiate the reasoning of the
previous opinion.
The case had its inception in
July, 1851, when the boy was
placed in the Barthel home at
4520 Albion road. The board at
first paid $35 a month for his
care, and later the amount was
increased to $45 a month.
Mrs. Barthel testified yester-
day she did not want to accept
any money but did so because
she was informed the board
would take the child back if she
refused. Mrs. Margaret Peterson,
at that time foster care work.
er for the board. confirmed Mrs.
Barthel's statements.
The Barthels filed their adop-
tion petition several months ago.
after the board informed them
Donald was to be placed in an
other foster home with his
younger sister Rose, also a Dis
trict welfare ward.
ID. c. officials Claim.
District welfare authorities
countered with a claim. that the
Maryland court lacked authority
to issue an adoption decree be-
cause the boy had been commit
ted to their care by the District
Juvenile Court. 1t was on this
point alone that Judge Marbury
heard debate at the previous
hearing from which stemmed his
jurisdictional ruling.
The basic element of that rul-
ing was that child is entitled
to the protection of the courts of
the State in which he lives.
Yesterdays hearing concerned
the questions Of whether the
Barthels are qualified to care for
the boy and whether his welfare
would be best served by living
with them or elsewhere.
On these points Judge Mar
bury declared he was bound to
find that Mr.. and Mrs. Barthel