WILLIAM ARND'T, JR., AND EUNICE ARND'T, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARGARET HELEN PROSE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's decision automatically awarding custody of a twelve-year-old illegitimate child to his natural mother in a habeas corpus proceeding. The Court held that the child's welfare, not merely the biological parent's legal right to custody, must be the primary consideration in such cases.
A trial court in a habeas corpus custody proceeding is not bound by the natural parent's legal right to custody alone, but must exercise sound judicial discretion to determine what custody arrangement best serves the welfare of the child after careful consideration of all relevant facts.
“the law is not so much concerned about the illegality of the detention as the welfare of the child”
Establishes that habeas corpus custody proceedings focus on child welfare rather than mere legal rights
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMargaret Helen Prose, the natural mother of twelve-year-old Orville Junior Moseley, filed a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of her illegitimate…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Welfare cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
This is a habeas corpus case, in which the appellee is attempting to obtain the custody of her illegitimate child, Orville Junior Moseley, aged twelve, now in the custody of the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Arnd’t. The appellee alleged in her petition that she is the natural mother of the child and that the appellants are unlawfully restraining him from returning to her. From the allegations of the Arnd’ts’ answer to the writ, it appears that Orville Junior is the son of Mrs. Arnd’t’s brother, Orville Moseley; that, at appellee’s request, Moseley took custody of the child when he was about six years of age and at that time placed him in the care of Mr. and Mrs. Arnd’t. They have had full charge of and responsibility for the child ever since, without any objection by the appellee until shortly before the filing of the instant petition. Allegations which cast some doubt upon the fitness of the appel-lee to have custody of Orville Junior were made, and it was also stated that Orville Junior wanted to stay with Mr. and Mrs. Arnd’t and did not want to return to his mother. As noted, Orville Junior is now twelve years old.
At the hearing on the writ and the answer thereto, the trial judge refused to hear any evidence on the question of the welfare of the child or his desires in the matter, it being his view that since Mr. and Mrs. Arnd’t’s answer had shown no legal right to the custody of the child and since the appellee, as his natural mother, had a clear legal right to his custody, he had no alternative but to remand the child to the custody of his mother. He did so, and Mr. and Mrs. Arnd’t have appealed.
We think the learned trial judge overlooked the holding of this court in Maddox v. Barr, 49 Fla. 182, 38 So. 766, that in a habeas corpus proceeding involving the custody of a child “the law is not so much concerned about the illegality of the detention as the welfare of the child * * It was further said as to such proceedings that
“The court, when asked to restore an infant, is not bound by any mere legal right of parent or guardian, but is to give it due weight as a claim founded on human nature, and generally equitable and just. The court is in no case bound to deliver a child into the custody of any claimant, but should, in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, after a careful consideration of the facts, leave it in such custody as the welfare of the child at the time appears to require.”
This rule has been followed in other cases involving the claim of a parent or legal custodian to the custody of a child as against the claims of third persons. See State ex rel. Weaver v. Hamans, 1935, 118 Fla. 230, 159 So. 31; State ex rel. Hicks v. Cain, 1948, 160 Fla. 680, 36 So. 2d 275; Fielding v. Highsmith, 1943, 152 Fla. 837, 13 So. 2d 208.
Accordingly, the order remanding the child to the custody of the appellee must be reversed under the authority of the above cited cases, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS and’ THORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. Fla. State Dep't OF Pub. Welf. & Anne Curtwright, 226 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…e exercise of sound judicial discretion after a careful consideration of the facts leave it in such custody as the welfare of the child at the time appears to require. This view has been adhered to in the following cases: Arnd’t v. Prose, Fla.1957, 94 So. 2d 818; State ex rel. Hicks v. Cain, 1948, 160 Fla. 680, 36 So. 2d 275; Fielding v. Highsmith, 1943, 152 Fla. 837, 13 So. 2d 208; State ex rel. Weaver v. Hamans, 1935, 118 Fla. 230, 159 So. 31; Maddox v. Barr, 1905, 49 Fla. 182, 38 So. 766. In the instant…
-
McKINNEY v. Weeks, 130 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…and wrongs of its contending parents.” 15 Fla.Jur. Habeas Corpus § 62. Reference is also made to Fielding v. Highsmith, 152 Fla. 837, 13 So. 2d 208, where upon habeas corpus an order of adoption was found invalid, and to Arnd’t v. Prose, Fla.1957, 94 So. 2d 818, where evidence was refused by trial judge on the question of the welfare of the child. The order of the lower court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to the requirements of law. ALLEN, C. J., and KANNER, J., con…
-
Scarpetta v. DeMARTINO, 254 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…law in ruling that the best interests and welfare of Lenore were served by leaving her custody with the ap-pellees. There is sufficient, competent and substantial evidence in the record on appeal to affirm his ruling. See Arnd’t v. Prose, Fla.1957, 94 So. 2d 818; Fielding v. Highsmith, 152 Fla. 837, 13 So. 2d 208 (1943); State ex rel. Weaver v. Hamans, 118 Fla. 230, 159 So. 31 (1935); Hancock v. Dupree, 100 Fla. 617, 129 So. 822 (1930); Witt v. Burford, 84 Fla. 201, 93 So. 186 (1922); McKinney v. Weeks, Fla…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- IDE v. City OF ST. Cloud, 152 Fla. 837 (Fla. 1943)
- State v. Augustus P. Hamans, 118 Fla. 230 (Fla. 1935)
- Hitup Maddox v. Leda Ray Barr, 49 Fla. 182 (Fla. 1905)
- State of Fla. Ex rel. Floria Nell Hicks v. Cain, 160 Fla. 680 (Fla. 1948)