Re G. (an Infant)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MORRIS,LORD JUSTICE ROMER |
| Judgment Date | 19 June 1956 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1956] EWCA Civ J0619-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 19 June 1956 |
[1956] EWCA Civ J0619-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Evershed)
Lord Justice Morris and
Lord Justice Romer
MR P. INGRESS BELL, Q.C, and MR. M. O'CONNELL STRANDERS (instructed by Messrs. Curwen, Carter & Evans) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Applicant.).
MR RAYMOND W. JENNINGS, Q.C, and MR J.A. WOLFE (instructed by Mr. Edward F. Iwi, Agent for Messrs. Armstrong & Co., Forest Hill, S.E.23) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
THS MASTER OF THE ROLLS: This appeal relates to a small girl childwho was born on the 17th January, 1952: she is, therefore, now about 4½ years old. Her parents, unfortunately, were not married. Her father (who is the Appellant here) is a gentleman who comes from the Gold Coast, and he is what is called a coloured man. The child's mother, on the other hand, is an English girl and a white woman; so that the small child is the result of a union of a white woman with a coloured man. I mention that fact because of certain of the arguments put forward on the father's behalf by Mr. Ingress Bell.
The proceedings arose out of these circumstances. Unhappily, the father and the mother of this child, having lived together as man and wife for a time, then quarreled, and quarreled violently. The little girl was sent to a lady in Wales, a Mrs. Perrott, who, with great kindness, looked after this child - as she also looked after the legitimate child of the father. The mother, however, during the Long Vacation of 1954 applied to the Vacation Judge, Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones, for a habeas corpus Order directed to obtaining delivery up to her (the mother) of this small child. As the child was illegitimate, according to the common law of the land, the mother was, and is, the person responsible for the upbringing of the child. Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones did not, however, make the Order: he expressed the view that the child was attached to its father and the father was attached to it, a point which he desired should be brought to the attention of any Judge exercising the equitable jurisdiction of the court if and when (as later happened) application was made to make the child a ward of court. That application was made in September, 1954, and those are the proceedings with which we are now concerned.
The matter came before Mr. Justice Wynn Parry in November,1955, and the form of the Order which he made was as follows. After reading a great volume of written evidence and after hearing the evidence (orally) of the father, the mother and a Dr. Isaacs, the Order proceeds: "And the Respondent" (that is, themother) "by her Counsel undertaking not to have any contact of any kind with the Applicant in the future it is ordered that" the infant "be handed over to the Respondent at the office of the Applicant's solicitors", at a time and on a day stated. The Order proceeds: "And the said infant, having become a ward of this Court …. by virtue of section 9, sub-section (2) of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2949…. order that the infant do cease to be a ward of this Court immediately upon being handed over to the Respondent in accordance with the direction hereinbefore contained".
The Appellant here, the father (and I will continue so to call him), has not appealed from that part of the Order which directed the delivery over to the mother of the infant on the date stated in the Order; nor, of course, has he (because it did not affect him) complained of the undertaking which was obtained from the mother, though he has suggested that the form of that undertaking and its indefinite duration indicated that the Judge was overmuch concerned with the interests of the mother instead of the interests of the child, I do not agree with that criticism. It is quite true (as Mr. Bell has pointed out) that the undertaking is indefinite in duration; but I have no doubt whatever that, the Judge thought it right to request and obtain (and acted upon) that undertaking because he thought that such an undertaking would serve the best interests of the little girl. The reasons for that view I will come to presently.
I will next read a note which was taken of the reasons for Mr. Justice Wynn Parry's Judgment. I take the statement from document No.3, No shorthand note was made of the Judgment, and we have been supplied with the endorsements made on their briefs by the four learned Counsel concerned, which in one respect give rise to a divergence about which I shall have to say something; "out the part of the Judgment which I shall now read (not in full, but substantially in full) is agreed by all to represent what the Judge said. He said that he had no doubt that he had the jurisdiction to accede to the course which he had had but beforehim, "The authorities" (says he) "also make it clear that I ought to give primary consideration to the wishes of the mother. The view of the counts for many years has been that it is preferable that the infant should "be with a parent rather than strangers"; and then, after having given well-merited praise to Mrs, Perrott, he continues: "So far as the mother is concerned, I have had the supreme advantage of seeing her and hearing her cross-examined, I have carefully considered the whole evidence and taken into account satisfactory testimonials of the mother. I have doctor's evidence that for some time past she has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Stanley Clarke v Madge Carey
-
Peremptory Return Order, A
...by law with corresponding rights, one of which is the right prima facie to the custody and possession of the person of the child.' In Re G. (an infant), [1956] 2 All E.R. 876; 100 Sol. Jo.529, LORD EVERSHED, M.R., said that the mother's obligations existed at common law. He said ([1956] 2 ......
-
Clarke v Carey
...40 W.R.97; 7 T.L.R. 726. (6) Humphrys v. Polak, [1901] 2 K.B. 385; 70 L.J.K.B. 752; 85 L.T. 103; 49 W.R. 612. (7) Re G. (an infant), [1956] 2 All E.R. 876; 100 Sol. Jo. 529. (8) J. v. C., [1970] A.C. 668; [1969] 2 All E.R. 788; [1969] 2 W.L.R. 540. (9) Re O. (infants), [1971] 1 Ch. 748; [19......
- White v Springle