Court Opinion

ID: 9721435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:59:16.041146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:25.824699
License: Public Domain

Clinton, J.,
concurring.
The record clearly shows without contradiction that care of Lawrence William Marcus was temporarily entrusted to the Huffmans and some 3 weeks later they unjustifiably and wrongfully refused to return the child to his mother. This refusal was without color of right.
The dissenting opinions pay lip service to the principles regarding the natural rights of the parent but completely disregard them. They imply the state is all-powerful as far as child custody is concerned.
If the dissents correctly state the law then if I should leave my child with a babysitter, the babysitter may if she wishes refuse to return my child to me and I must resort to habeas corpus, and the court may in such action determine the parent’s fitness as compared with that of the sitter.
Habeas corpus is not the appropriate vehicle in which to make such a determination. The Huffmans should gain no right through their wrongful refusal. In cases such as this the only issue should be whether the refusal to deliver the child was wrongful.
*814It is tragic that this case has taken so long to come to a conclusion. This is in some meaure owing to the inability of the mother to procure counsel and legal service when her possession of her child was wrongfully denied her. Counsel who ultimately took the case and fought her battle and that of the child is to be highly commended.
Delay in cases of this kind is intolerable. Disposition of such cases should be given priority by the courts and all concerned.