In Re Hunter (1920) · DecisionDepot

In Re Hunter

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Jan 19, 1920 No. Crim. No. 498.Published

Before: Burnett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court had jurisdiction to commit the minors because the petition, while imperfect, sufficiently alleged facts justifying the commitment, and the subsequent findings of the court were supported by the Juvenile Court Law.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction due to the alleged insufficiency of the petition.
Whether the findings of the juvenile court were sufficient to justify the commitment of the minors under the Juvenile Court Law.

Disposition. Writ discharged and petitioners remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the findings of the court were and are sufficient to justify the commitment of said minors to said detention home.”

“we cannot say that it appears therein that the court had no jurisdiction to inquire into the question whether said minors should be committed to the custody of said probation officer.”

“no warrant has been shown herein for us to interfere with that discretion or to disturb the commitment.”

Synopsis

PROCEEDING on Habeas Corpus to secure the release of certain minors committed to the custody of the county probation officer. Writ discharged.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

BURNETT, J.

The application was made by the parents of said Ruby H. Hunter and Pearl M. Hunter for a writ of

[506]

habeas corpus

to secure their release from the custody of the probation officer of Butte ^County. The contention is that by reason of the insufficiency of the petition against them in the juvenile court in which said commitment was made, said juvenile court had no jurisdiction to commit said minors to the custody of said probation officer. Said petition, in its charging part, alleged: “That said Ruby TI. Hunter and Pearl M. Hunter are neglected and delinquent children in this, that they are both of school age and have not been attending the public schools of the said County of Butte, and that they have been keeping undesirable company with men, to-wit: two Hindu men, going about from place to place in automobiles with said Hindus, and associating with them at various and different times, and that one of said Hindus had a desire to marry one of said girls, made application to the county clerk of Butte County for a marriage license to marry her and was refused such license by the said county clerk, and that Ruby H. Hunter and Pearl M. Hunter in company with their father, John Hunter, and their brother, Robert Hunter, then went to Sacramento and made application for a license to marry and were refused such license; and that the parents, both of them, do not and cannot exercise the proper parental control and management of the said two minor children; that the said two minor children are of the age of seventeen years and have-only gone so far as the third grade in the grammar schools of the county, and that they are both sound and healthy, physically and mentally.”

The matter came on regularly for hearing before the superior court of said county, sitting as a juvenile court, and all the parties in interest being present, the evidence was heard, and, after due consideration, the court found that the parents of said minors were incapable of exercising proper parental control over said Ruby H. Hunter and Pearl M. Hunter and that they, and each of them, were at said time, and now are, in need of such proper paren-tal control; that by reason of the neglect of the said father and mother the home of said minors was and is an unfit ' place for them, “and that the said Ruby H. Hunter and Pearl M. Hunter, for a period of time prior to the said 15th day of December, 1919, were and neither of them were properly disciplined, controlled and managed and

In Re Hunter

AI Brief

Synopsis

BURNETT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief