Case Name: In the matter of the application of Edward D. Madden for the custody of Donald Brian Madden, a minor
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1943-01-22
Citations: 133 N.J. Eq. 22
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the matter of the application of Edward D. Madden for the custody of Donald Brian Madden, a minor.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 22–23

Head Matter:
In the matter of the application of Edward D. Madden for the custody of Donald Brian Madden, a minor.
[Argued October 23d, 1942.
Decided January 22d, 1943.]
Messrs. Breslin & Breslin (Mr. John J. Breslin, Jr., and Mr. James A. Major, of counsel), for the respondent.
Messrs. Morrison, Lloyd & Morrison and Messrs. Tiffany £ Massarsky (Mr. Reuben W. Massarsky, of counsel), for the defendant-appellant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery under which the appellant, Marjorie Madden, mother of the infant, Donald Madden, was deprived-of custody of the child (previously agreed to by her husband) and was allowed a right of visitation only as specified in the decree under review (March 16th, 3 942), and the amendment (March 21st, 1942). The parents were divorced in the State of Florida in 1939. By a separation agreement made in 3 933, prior to -their divorce, the fathom retained custody of the older son, Edward, then seven years old, and the mother retained custody of the infant, Donald, then four years old. The mother presently is a resident of this state and on the father's petition the custody of the boy, Donald, was taken from the mother arid given to the father save for the visitation right by appellant. The learned advisory master determined that the appellant was "not a lit person to have custody and control of the said infant child" and advised the order under review. The issue before the court below and before us is one of fact only.
We have examined the proofs on the matter and considered the appellant's arguments for reversal. Our conclusion is that the fact findings of the court below are supported by the evidence in the case. The decree is therefore affirméd.
For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter,. Colie, Dear, Wells, Rafferty, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 14.
For reversal — Hone.