Court Opinion

ID: 9625725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:49:33.162832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:14.140308
License: Public Domain

Gunter, Justice,
dissenting. This case began as an application for a writ of habeas corpus to acquire possession of three minor children. The respondent, the mother of the three minor children, filed a counterclaim to the application for the writ in which she sought an adjudication and judgment in her favor for past alimony payments and child support payments that were due, and she also sought to change the provisions of a New Jersey divorce decree which had fixed custody in the respondant and visitation rights with the three minor children in the applicant.
I have consistently taken the position that an application for a writ of habeas corpus is not a vehicle in this state for the adjudication of any claims other than the possession of the person or persons alleged by the applicant to be illegally withheld from his possession.
An application for the "great writ” is filed with the court. The court then issues the writ requiring the respondent to produce the person or persons alleged to be illegally withheld from the possession of the applicant. The respondent must comply with the writ by "producing the bodies” before the court at an appointed time, and the sole issue for determination by the court at the *54hearing is whether possession of the person or persons presented should be awarded to the applicant or retained in the respondent.
Code § 50-101 (b) provides that any person alleging that another, in whom for any cause he is interested, is kept illegally from the custody of the applicant may sue out a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the legality of such restraint.
Code § 50-104 provides that the hearing pursuant to the issuance of the writ is "for the purpose of an examination into the cause of the detention.”
It is my position that following the application, the issuance of the writ, and the hearing, the only judgment that can be rendered by the habeas corpus court is one placing possession of the person or persons involved in either the applicant or the respondent, or in some situations, as provided for in Code § 50-121, in a third party.
The judgment in the case at bar adjudicated past due alimony and child support payments, it changed a New Jersey court decree that had fixed custody and visitation rights, it established certain requirements of behavior for the applicant and the respondent, and it awarded attorney fees to the attorney for the respondent. As I view the purpose of the "great writ,” the habeas corpus court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate any of these matters.
As I read this record, the only judgment that the habeas corpus court could have rendered in this case was one remanding the three children to the custody of the respondent.
I would reverse the judgment below.
I respectfully dissent.