In Re Gille

California Court of Appeal Feb 19, 1924 No. Crim. No. 1072.Published

Before: Finlayson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A parent of good character who is able to provide for their child is entitled to custody over non-parents, regardless of the non-parents' superior wealth or the child's preference. A prior habeas corpus order regarding custody is not res judicata when subsequent changes in circumstances, such as the respondents' interference with the parent-child relationship, materially alter the case.

Issues

Does a parent's superior right to custody yield to non-parents who possess greater wealth or have established a bond with the child?
Is a prior habeas corpus order regarding child custody res judicata in a subsequent proceeding?
Do new facts and changed circumstances regarding the child's welfare and the parent's rights permit the court to disregard a prior custody adjudication?

Disposition. Ordered that the minor be released to the petitioner.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The mother of an illegitimate unmarried minor, unless her character or her surroundings are such as to unfit her therefor, is entitled to the custody of her child.”

“A parent who is of good character and a proper person to have the custody of the child and reasonably able to provide for it is entitled to the custody as against other persons”

“an adjudication in a habeas corpus proceeding involving the right to the custody of a minor is res adjudicata and binding upon the parties only so long as the facts are the same”

FINLAYSON, P. J.

This is a proceeding in

habeas corpus

to obtain the custody of a ten year old girl, the daughter of petitioner, who applied for the writ on behalf of the child. Certain unusual features set forth in the mother’s petition, but which are not necessary to narrate, induce this court to exercise its original jurisdiction in this instance.

The child was born out of wedlock. Her mother,

née

Claudia Gille, is now married to Rudolph Hagberg, an artist, whose earnings are sufficient to support himself, his wife, and the child. In October of 1915 the mother placed the child in the care and custody of the respondents to the writ, William S. Jenkins and Edna A. Jenkins, husband and wife, who reside in the city of Los Angeles and who assumed the obligation to care for the child and to board it under an agreement whereby the mother agreed to pay respondents the monthly sum of thirteen dollars. The parties lived up to the terms of this agreement for a number of years following the arrangement. During this time petitioner, who was working in a laundry, frequently called at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins to see her little girl. Until about a year or a year and a half ago Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins permitted these visits without let or hindrance. At no time has petitioner evinced any intention to abandon her infant daughter or to part permanently with the right to her custody and control.

On July 10, 1922, petitioner made application to the superior court of Los Angeles County for a writ of

habeas corpus,

praying for the custody of her child. The writ was

[619]

issued, Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins made return thereto and the matter was heard, with the result that an order was made on the twenty-first day of July, 1922, dismissing the writ.

Respondents, who possess more of this world’s goods than does the mother or her husband, are deeply attached to the little girl. They have taken care of her for more than eight years, and earnestly desire to continue so to do. The child is happy and contented, and desires to remain with her foster parents.

In Re Gille

AI Brief

FINLAYSON, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief