Costa v. Abbott

MR. JUSTICE Pro Tem. TUTTLE Delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is a contest over the guardianship of the person of Dorothy Minada, known as Dorothy Abbott, a minor, born January 5, 1921, at Lodi, California. The petitioner Alda Minada, now Costa, is the mother of the child. Cross-petitioners Jay S. Abbott and Gladys W. Abbott, his wife, now have and have continuously had the care and custody of the child ever since she was a few days old. The Minada-Costa petition was denied on the ground of the abandonment and nonsupport of the child by petitioner, and the petition of cross-petitioners was granted. This appeal is by the petitioner. The determination of this appeal rests on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of abandonment and nonsupport made by the trial court, viz.: Findings 2, 3 and' 4, which findings are as follows:

“2. On January 15th, 1921, said petitioner, with the intent thereby to entirely sever the parental relation existing between herself and said child, and with the intent to throw off all obligations growing out of said parental relation, gave said child to cross-petitioners at said Lodi. Cross-petitioners then and there accepted said child from petitioner, took said child into their home, and since the date [497]aforesaid continuously have supported, cared for, and nurtured said child as their own. Since the date aforesaid cross-petitioners have continuously resided with said child at said Lodi. Petitioner continued to live at said Lodi until on or about 1927 since which time she has resided with her husband at San Mateo, California. During the entire period elapsing from January 15th, 1921, until on or about November, 1921, petitioner never in any manner communicated with or attempted to communicate with said child or with cross-petitioners or either of them. During the entire period last mentioned petitioner knew that the said child was in the custody of cross-petitioners at said Lodi.

“3. Said child was given by petitioner to cross-petitioners as aforesaid without any provision for its support, and petitioner did not at any time during the period last aforesaid support, or contribute to the support, or offer to contribute to the support of said child in any way or to any extent whatsoever, although able to do so.

“The matters and things hereinabove set forth in Findings 2 and 3 supra were had and done by petitioner with the intent on her part to abandon said child.”

The trial court also found that the mother was a fit and proper person to have the custody of the child.