Story Case

The wife of Charles Williams died leaving him with two children, eight and ten years of age. A few months after this occurred Williams became a man of dissolute habits and within a short time failed altogether to provide for the children. Thereupon, Andrew Temple, the father of their mother, took the two children, and being a man of ample means, gave them a good home and training. After a course of two years, Williams completely changed his habits and became a man of sober habits and industry. He established a small home and requested the return of his children. Temple refused to give them up, saying that he was more capable of giving them a good home and that the children were happy and satisfied. Thereupon Williams brought suit for the possession of the children. What should the Court do?

Ruling Court Case. Stapleton Vs. Poynter, Volume 111 Kentucky Reports, Page 264; Volume 53 Lawyers' Reports Annotated, Page 784

Christena Poynter married one W. R. Stapleton in the year 1888. He was a man of dissolute habits. He was worthless and did not properly support and care for his wife and family. For these reasons his wife left him taking with her their three children, and went to live at the home of her father-in-law. Her father-in-law was unwilling and unable to support her and her children. She, accordingly, sought and found work as a domestic servant in the same community. Desiring to have her children with her, she went to live with her own parents, who lived in an adjoining county, taking the children with her. The father-in-law of Christena, and grandfather of the children, took a great fancy to one of the children. He went to Christena under the pretense of reconciling the differences between her and her husband, with a view to having them live together again. Under this deception she allowed him to take this child, which he carried home with him and she agreed to his keeping it until she and its father should live together as man and wife. W. R. Stapleton, however, refused to live with Christena again; and soon thereafter died.

Christena, who after the death of her husband, assumed the name of Poynter brought this action to recover possession of her child from its grandparents. It was contended by the grandparents that they should be permitted to retain possession of the child, because they were better able than the mother to care for and educate the child and that the child did not wish to return to its mother.

Decision: The mother of a child is its natural guardian if she is a person of thrift, character, and has love for the child. She has a superior right to any third person to have possession of the child, even though third persons may have greater wealth, and are more able to give such child the luxuries of life.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

Because of the natural relation which exists between parent and child, it is universally admitted that the parents are entitled to the custody of their children. However, for good reason shown, courts may interfere and take from the parents this natural right. Courts will do this when the parents are manifestly unfit or incompetent to properly care for and train their children.

As between mother and father, custody of their offspring is regarded as a joint right: but in the case of separation, all other things being equal, the right of the father is paramount to the right of the mother. If it appears that the child will be better cared for and trained by its mother, the Court will generally give the mother custody. In determining whether the mother or father shall have possession of the children, the primary consideration is the welfare of the children.

From what has been said it follows that, as against third persons, however closely related to the child, the natural parents have the right to the custody and possession of their children. This is true even though the child may prefer to live with such persons and even though it may appear that such persons are more competent and more able, to rear the children properly. So close is the bond between parent and child, that a Court will not sever the bond in favor of a third person, unless the parent is manifestly unfit and unable to bring up his children in a proper manner.

If, in the Story Case, the Court is satisfied with the responsibility and integrity of "Williams, the judge will deliver possession of the children to their father, and this is true altho the father could not give them as luxuriant a home as could their grandfather.