In Re Goeppner

California Court of Appeal Dec 29, 1926 No. Docket No. 1371.Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the respondent failed to establish a legal right to custody of the minor child because the adoption proceedings relied upon were insufficient due to flagrant errors in the names of the parties.

Issues

Whether the respondent established a legal right to custody of the minor child through the presented adoption proceedings.
Whether the discrepancies in the names of the parties in the adoption proceedings render the respondent's claim to custody invalid.

Disposition. granted

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it is sufficient to say that upon the admitted facts before us the respondent who now has the custody and control of the child has failed to show any right to retain that custody.”

“the respondent relies solely upon the adoption proceedings in justification of her retention of the child from its natural mother, but as we have seen, those proceedings related to one Adeline Howard only.”

NOURSE, J.

The petitioner sues for a writ of

habeas corpus

to recover the custody and possession of her minor child, Audrey Madeline Goeppner. In her petition she alleges that the child is illegally and forcibly detained by

[527]

one Adeline Howat; that the petitioner is the natural mother of said child, which was born out of wedlock; that she has at no time abandoned the child, but that, at all times, except when prevented by said Adeline Howat, said child has been in the actual care, custody, and control of the petitioner.

A return to the writ issued herein has been filed by the person who has the present custody of the child, and who will hereafter be referred to as the respondent. This return reads in part as follows: “Comes now

Adelaine Howat,

also known as

Adelaine Howard,

and makes this return.” None of the allegations of the petition are denied, but it is alleged that on March 25, 1924,

Adelaine Howat,

also known as Adelaine Howard,

duly

adopted the child by proceedings in the superior court for that purpose. A copy of these proceedings was not attached to the return as required by section 1480 of the Penal Code, but the original proceedings were exhibited at the time of the oral argument.

Prom this record it appears that on March 20, 1924,

Adeline Howard

filed her petition for leave to adopt the minor child in which she alleged that written consents of her husband and of the natural mother of the child to the adoption of the child in accordance with the petition had been filed. As a part of the record we find a paper signed by Karl

In Re Goeppner

AI Brief

NOURSE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief