Summary
In McClure v. Williams, 201 Ala. 499, 78 So. 853, the court recognized the equity of a bill by the natural parent to cancel and annul the declaration of adoption in a proper case. Under general principles it would seem that a court of equity in the exercise of its power to dispose of the person of infants and to protect the rights of the natural parent may do complete equity in protecting the right of the foster parent also but this question is not now before us.
Summary of this case from Buttrey v. WestOpinion
8 Div. 100.
May 9, 1918.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; R. C. Brickell, Judge.
Callahan Harris, of Decatur, for appellant. Sample Kilpatrick, of Cullman, for appellees.
Appellant filed this bill praying that a certain record of the probate court, evidencing a declaration of adoption and the decretal order thereon by which appellees adopted a minor child of appellant, be canceled and annulled, and that the child be restored to the custody of his natural parents. In every case involving such issues the court, having due regard for that parental love which covers a multitude of shortcomings, is clothed with a sound discretion to grant or refuse relief as the best interests of the infant may demand. Kirkbride v. Harvey, 139 Ala. 231, 35 So. 848. As has appeared in the foregoing statement, appellees have adopted the child in this case by a formal proceeding in the probate court under section 5202 of the Code. Nevertheless, the court of equity, its jurisdiction being properly invoked, exercises a free discretion in disposing of the child for its own benefit and welfare. Murphree v. Hanson, 197 Ala. 246, 72 So. 437. In this case the adoption proceeding, though not concluding the judgment to be rendered, is not without weighty consideration in that connection, for upon the evidence the court is thoroughly well satisfied that it was had with the consent and at the request of the parents of the child. Not only so, but, upon the whole case, details of which need not be here stated, the court is of opinion that the best interests of the child require that the decree under consideration, by which appellant's bill was dismissed, should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and GARDNER, JJ., concur.