People ex rel. Boulware v. Martens

232 A.D. 258, 249 N.Y.S. 600, 1931 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13782
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 1, 1931
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 232 A.D. 258 (People ex rel. Boulware v. Martens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People ex rel. Boulware v. Martens, 232 A.D. 258, 249 N.Y.S. 600, 1931 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that the relator is entitled to the custody of his children. The amendment of 1923 (chap. 235) to section 70 of the Domestic Relations Law is limited in so far as it relates to the custody of minor children to cases of differences arising between parents. The section has no application to the right of a surviving father to such custody. The law, frequently declared (People ex rel. Byrne v. Brugman, 3 App. Div. 155; People ex rel. Beaudoin v. Beaudoin, 126 id. 505; affd., 193 N. Y. 611; Matter of Thorne, 240 id. 444), is that a surviving parent’s right to the custody of his minor children is paramount to that of all other persons, inclusive of those named as testamentary guardians in the will of the deceased parent. (See, also, Matter of Waring, 46 Misc. 222, 223.) A careful consideration of all the facts leads us to conclude that there was no legal basis for depriving the relator of the custody of his children. He is admittedly a man of good moral character. The wife’s decree of divorce, granted in the State of California upon the ground of the husband’s cruelty, carried with it no right of deprivation of the husband’s custody of his children upon her death. The decree, moreover, liberally gave him the right of visitation of his children at all reasonable times. Even if his conduct had been more serious than that of alleged cruelty, of which the California judgment shows none too strong a basis, the penalty of non-custody during the lifetime of the parties would not survive the wife’s death. (Matter of Thorne, supra; People ex rel. Byrne v. Brugman, supra; Matter of Waring, supra.)

The order dismissing the writ of habeas corpus should be reversed upon the law and the facts, without costs, writ sustained, and custody of relator’s children awarded to him.

Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kappeb, Scuddeb and Davis, JJ., concur.

Order dismissing writ of habeas corpus reversed upon the law and the facts, without costs, writ sustained, and custody of relator’s children awarded to him.

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

Related

Pollock v. Pollock
53 A.D.2d 597 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re Kimberly P.
84 Misc. 2d 887 (NYC Family Court, 1975)
In re Samantha O.
71 Misc. 2d 774 (NYC Family Court, 1972)
People ex rel. Moffett v. Cooper
63 Misc. 2d 1005 (NYC Family Court, 1970)
Anonymous v. Anonymous
50 Misc. 2d 43 (NYC Family Court, 1966)
Bachman v. Mejias
136 N.E.2d 866 (New York Court of Appeals, 1956)
Bachman v. Mejias
1 A.D.2d 319 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)
Shea v. Shea
286 A.D. 1112 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1955)
People ex rel. Kleppe v. Cuisinier
279 A.D. 1037 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1952)
People ex rel. Portnoy v. Strasser
104 N.E.2d 895 (New York Court of Appeals, 1952)
Kienlen v. Kienlen
34 N.W.2d 151 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1948)
In re Bock
255 A.D. 862 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1938)
In re Stuart
255 A.D. 811 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1938)
People ex rel. Hausler v. Stegmeier
240 A.D. 901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1933)
People ex rel. Reid v. Cavanagh
236 A.D. 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932)
In re the Estate of Boulware
144 Misc. 235 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
232 A.D. 258, 249 N.Y.S. 600, 1931 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-boulware-v-martens-nyappdiv-1931.