In Re the Guardianship of Stanley

Washington Supreme Court

In Re the Guardianship of Stanley

258 P. 859, 143 Wash. 440, 1927 Wash. LEXIS 654

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedApril 21, 1927

DocketNo. 20354. Department One.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 258 P. 859 (In Re the Guardianship of Stanley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re the Guardianship of Stanley, 258 P. 859, 143 Wash. 440, 1927 Wash. LEXIS 654 (Wash. 1927).

Pincite

Opinions

Main, J.

Jeannette Stanley, the mother of Robert F. Stanley, filed a petition in the superior court asking that she be appointed guardian of the estate of the -minor. In this proceeding, D. F. Stanley, the guardian *441 of Robert I. Stanley, tbe boy’s father, appeared and tbe attorney for the United States Veterans’ Bureau also appeared. Tbe trial resulted in an order appointing the Old National Bank and Union Trust Company of Spokane as guardian of tbe estate of tbe minor, and Bessie F. Ware, an aunt of tbe minor, as guardian of bis person. Tbe petitioner, Jeanette Stanley, appeals, but does not contest tbe portion of tbe order appointing tbe Old National Bank and Union Trust Company guardian of tbe estate. Her only complaint is being deprived of tbe guardianship of the person of her minor son.

A motion to dismiss tbe appeal is made because it is claimed that the notice of appeal was not served upon the United States Veterans’ Bureau. Whether tbe motion was so served is a disputed question of fact. On tbe one side, there is an affidavit stating that tbe service was made by mail and setting out tbe details thereof. On the other side, there is an affidavit that tbe motion was not received. This being tbe state of tbe record we are disposed to think that tbe motion to dismiss should be denied.

The question upon tbe merits is whether tbe court was authorized, under the facts and tbe law, to deprive tbe appellant, tbe mother of tbe boy, of tbe right to be the guardian of bis person. Tbe appellant and Robert I. Stanley were married during tbe month of August, 1919. As a result of this marriage, one child was born, Robert F. Stanley, who is now six years of age. At tbe time of tbe trial, Robert I. Stanley, tbe appellant’s husband and the boy’s father was confined in tbe United States hospital at American Lake, this state, and was mentally afflicted. Tbe appellant and Robert I. Stanley, her husband, bad not lived together since tbe time, when tbe boy was about six months of *442 age. The appellant, at all times since the child was horn has taken care of him, supported and maintained him. She worked as a waitress or chamber maid, and had the child taken care of by some other person, for which she paid. For four years prior to the trial, the boy had been with a Mrs. Euffner at Eoslyn, B. C., and the appellant had paid twenty dollars per month for his care and support and had provided him with clothing. At the time of the trial, all obligations in this respect were paid up to date. Not a word in the record is said against the home in which the boy had been for four years. In fact, the trial judge stated that, when Mrs. Euffner was on the witness stand, she appeared to be a lf splendid woman. ’ ’ It definitely appears that the child has been well cared for and is being properly brought up. The appellant, being under the necessity of working for a livelihood, of course cannot keep him with her.

The parent is the natural guardian of the child recognized as such by law, and in the absence of a showing that the welfare of the child has not been properly looked after this right should not be abridged. It is said that the appellant has done things of which the conventions of society disapprove and the law forbids. However this may be, there is no showing that she has not been a good mother to her child. Conceding that her conduct may have been bad in certain respects, it is in no way reflected in the care that has been given or the influence that has surrounded the child. Simply because a mother may have made mistakes and may not at all times have pursued a course which society and the law approves, does not furnish a reason for depriving her of the guardianship of the person of her offspring.

That portion of the order appointing Bessie F. Ware *443 guardian of the person will be reversed, and the cause remanded with direction to the superior court to appoint the appellant guardian of the person of Robert F. Stanley, her minor son.

Mackintosh, C. J., Mitchell, French, and Fullerton, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Main, J.

Jeannette Stanley, the mother of Robert F. Stanley, filed a petition in the superior court asking that she be appointed guardian of the estate of the -minor. In this proceeding, D. F. Stanley, the guardian *441 of Robert I. Stanley, tbe boy’s father, appeared and tbe attorney for the United States Veterans’ Bureau also appeared. Tbe trial resulted in an order appointing the Old National Bank and Union Trust Company of Spokane as guardian of tbe estate of tbe minor, and Bessie F. Ware, an aunt of tbe minor, as guardian of bis person. Tbe petitioner, Jeanette Stanley, appeals, but does not contest tbe portion of tbe order appointing tbe Old National Bank and Union Trust Company guardian of tbe estate. Her only complaint is being deprived of tbe guardianship of the person of her minor son.

A motion to dismiss tbe appeal is made because it is claimed that the notice of appeal was not served upon the United States Veterans’ Bureau. Whether tbe motion was so served is a disputed question of fact. On tbe one side, there is an affidavit stating that tbe service was made by mail and setting out tbe details thereof. On the other side, there is an affidavit that tbe motion was not received. This being tbe state of tbe record we are disposed to think that tbe motion to dismiss should be denied.

The question upon tbe merits is whether tbe court was authorized, under the facts and tbe law, to deprive tbe appellant, tbe mother of tbe boy, of tbe right to be the guardian of bis person. Tbe appellant and Robert I. Stanley were married during tbe month of August, 1919. As a result of this marriage, one child was born, Robert F. Stanley, who is now six years of age. At tbe time of tbe trial, Robert I. Stanley, tbe appellant’s husband and the boy’s father was confined in tbe United States hospital at American Lake, this state, and was mentally afflicted. Tbe appellant and Robert I. Stanley, her husband, bad not lived together since tbe time, when tbe boy was about six months of *442 age. The appellant, at all times since the child was horn has taken care of him, supported and maintained him. She worked as a waitress or chamber maid, and had the child taken care of by some other person, for which she paid. For four years prior to the trial, the boy had been with a Mrs. Euffner at Eoslyn, B. C., and the appellant had paid twenty dollars per month for his care and support and had provided him with clothing. At the time of the trial, all obligations in this respect were paid up to date. Not a word in the record is said against the home in which the boy had been for four years. In fact, the trial judge stated that, when Mrs. Euffner was on the witness stand, she appeared to be a lf splendid woman. ’ ’ It definitely appears that the child has been well cared for and is being properly brought up. The appellant, being under the necessity of working for a livelihood, of course cannot keep him with her.

The parent is the natural guardian of the child recognized as such by law, and in the absence of a showing that the welfare of the child has not been properly looked after this right should not be abridged. It is said that the appellant has done things of which the conventions of society disapprove and the law forbids. However this may be, there is no showing that she has not been a good mother to her child. Conceding that her conduct may have been bad in certain respects, it is in no way reflected in the care that has been given or the influence that has surrounded the child. Simply because a mother may have made mistakes and may not at all times have pursued a course which society and the law approves, does not furnish a reason for depriving her of the guardianship of the person of her offspring.

That portion of the order appointing Bessie F. Ware *443 guardian of the person will be reversed, and the cause remanded with direction to the superior court to appoint the appellant guardian of the person of Robert F. Stanley, her minor son.

Mackintosh, C. J., Mitchell, French, and Fullerton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 P. 859, 143 Wash. 440, 1927 Wash. LEXIS 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-guardianship-of-stanley-wash-1927.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack