Case Name: Malcolm Martin, Appellant, v. Clara Martin, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1954-12-31
Citations: 308 N.Y. 136
Docket Number: 
Parties: Malcolm Martin, Appellant, v. Clara Martin, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 308
Pages: 136–140

Head Matter:
Malcolm Martin, Appellant, v. Clara Martin, Respondent.
Argued October 15, 1954;
decided December 31, 1954.
James N. Vaughan and Hugh Lincoln Hoey for appellant.
I. The 1949 decree is res judicata with regard to the religious education of the boy because no facts were proved tending to show that the effects of such education have been harmful to him or that there has been any material change in circumstances since 1949. On the facts proved, either respondent’s motion should have been denied or custody transferred to the father. (People ex rel. Portnoy v. Strasser, 303 N. Y. 539; People ex rel. Sisson v. Sisson, 271 N. Y. 285; Duryea v. Bliven, 122 N. Y. 567; Matter of Noel, 173 Misc. 844; Haskell v. Haskell, 201 App. Div. 414, 236 N. Y. 635, 207 App. Div. 723; Armour v. Armour, 275 App. Div. 941; People ex rel. Glendening v. Glendening, 159 Misc. 215, 259 App. Div. 384, 284 N. Y. 598; Bunim v. Bunim, 298 N. Y. 391.) II. The twelve-year-old boy of immature judgment should not have been permitted, on the facts proved in this case, to decide for himself the nature of his religious education. (International Text Book Co. v. Connelly, 206 N. Y. 188; Greenburg v. New York Central & H. R. R. R. Co., 210 N. Y. 505; Matter of Vardinakis, 160 Misc. 13; Matter of Santos, 278 App. Div. 373, 304 N. Y. 483, 279 App. Div. 578; Matter of Zorach v. Clauson, 303 N. Y. 161, 343 U. S. 306; People ex rel. Portnoy v. Strasser, 303 N. Y. 539; Matter of Auster [Weberman], 302 N. Y. 855; People ex rel. Glendening v. Glendening, 159 Misc. 215, 259 App. Div. 384, 284 N. Y. 598; Bunim v. Bunim, 298 N. Y. 391; Lester v. Lester, 178 App. Div. 205, 222 N. Y. 546; Matter of Jiranek, 183 Misc. 704, 269 App. Div. 709.) III. Independently of the 1949 judgment and because of the written antenuptial agreement, the father possessed the right and obligation to control the religious educa tian of Ms cMM and tMis the right and obligation to protect the religions heritage of the cMld. (Weinberger v. Van Hessen, 260 N. Y. 294; Matter of Mancini, 89 Misc. 83; Matter of Kananack, 272 App. Div. 783; Matter of Charter, 265 App. Div. 1006; Matter of Glavas, 203 Misc. 590.)
Malcolm I. Ruddock, Bertram E. Gendar and Edward A. Niles for respondent.
I. On the facts presented the Referee was not bound by res judicata and had full power and discretion to grant respondent’s motion. (People ex rel. Sisson v. Sisson, 271 N. Y. 285.) II. In the light both of statute and precedent, a cMld’s interests control in such questions as the present. III. An antenuptial agreement cannot control as against the cMld’s welfare. (Denton v. James, 107 Kan. 729; Boerger v. Boerger, 26 N. J. Super. 90; Commonwealth v. McClelland, 70 Pa. Super. Ct. 273; Andrews v. Salt, L. R. 8 Ch. 622; Matter of Nevin, [1891] Ch. 299; Purinton v. Jamrock, 195 Mass. 187; Matter of M’Dowle, 8 Johns. 328; People ex rel. Fowler v. Pillow, 1 Sandf. 672; Matter of Watson, 10 Abb. N. C. 215.) IV. A child should not be punished for its custodian’s fault, if any. (Stourton v. Stourton, 8 De G. M. & G. 760; Hawksworth v. Hawksworth, L. R. 6 Ch. 539.) V. The father’s wishes have no preference and must yield to his cMld’s welfare. (Matter of Agar-Ellis, 10 Ch. D. 49; Matter of W, [1907] Ch. 557; Ward v. Laverty, [1925] A. C. 101; Matter of Thain, [1926] Ch. 676.) VT. Religious education outside of the faith of the custodian is disfavored. (Weinberger v. Van Hessen, 260 N. Y. 294.) VII. A court is justified in consulting and giving weight to the preferences of a child of Malcolm’s age and qualities. (Matter of Vardinakis, 160 Misc. 13.) VIII. Any attempt to change a cMld’s actual religious faith is to be avoided on principle. (Matter of Newton, [1896] Ch. 740.) IX. The constitutional provisions protecting religious liberty forbid restoration of the original order at tMs date.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
After a fairly extensive hearing, at which the boy, then twelve, now fourteen, years old, testified, the Referee, appointed to hear and determine the matter, decided that the " boy's welfare " called for modification of the decree in the respects requested, and the Appellate Division affirmed. There being ample evidence to support both the finding that the youngster was old enough to testify intelligently and the conclusion that the modification was for his best interests and welfare, the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.