Case Name: Taylor v. Collins
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1927-01-10
Citations: 172 Ark. 541
Docket Number: 
Parties: Taylor v. Collins.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 172
Pages: 541–544

Head Matter:
Taylor v. Collins.
Opinion delivered January 10, 1927.
Thos. G. Trimble and Thos. G. Trimble, Jr., for appellant.
T. E. Helm, for appellee.

Opinion:
Kirby, J.,
(after stating the facts). Appellant contends that the Pulaski Probate Court was without jurisdiction to make the order of adoption, since the child, as a matter of fact, was living at the time in Lonoke County. The petition, however, states that the child is a resident of Pulaski County, as well as the petitioners who desired his adoption; that his name is unknown, and could not be ascertained, and that his mother was dead, and his father's whereabouts unknown.
The court found from the testimony of more than two competent witnesses that such was the fact. It was obvious that the name of the child could not be stated in the petition, since no one knew the name of its mother, who was dead, the woman who delivered the baby to the probation officer not disclosing it, and denying that she had any knowledge of the identity of the father, if living. It was not necessary therefore that the name of the child be set out in the petition, which was a sufficient compliance, under the circumstances, with the requirement of the statute. Crawford & Moses' Digest, § 252-256.
Even though it was a fact that the baby had been in the home of the petitioners in Lonoke County when they presented their petition for his adoption, it can make no difference, since he had been delivered to them temporarily by the probation officer of Pulaski County, who was entitled to his custody; and, whether the residence of the child would, in legal contemplation, be that of the probation officer of Pulaski County, which is doubtless true under the circumstances, can make no difference, since the petition itself alleged that the child was a resident of Pulaski County at the time of the adoption, and as recited in the order, which allegation gave said probate court jurisdiction and cannot be disputed aliunde. Avery v. Avery, 160 Ark. 375, 255 S. W. 18.
The testimony of the two witnesses that the residence of the father of the infant was unknown dispensed, of course, with the statutory requirement that he should appear in open court and give consent to the order, and, had there been no such testimony, the jurisdiction of the court did not depend on such evidence nor its recital in the record, and, while the making of the order of adoption without such proof might be error and furnish ground for setting aside the order of adoption on the petition of the child's father, neither the petitioners on whose petition the order was made nor any one claiming through either of them, as appellant does, would be allowed to object to the judgment on 'that ground. Coleman v. Coleman, 81 Ark. 7, 98 S. W. 733.
No error is found in the record. The judgment is affirmed.