Opinion
No. 36103.
April 22, 1946. Suggestion of Error Overruled May 13, 1946.
1. PARENT AND CHILD.
Parties, who lawfully took infant into their custody immediately after she became an orphan and assumed the obligations to her incident to the parental relation, stood in loco parentis to the infant, and their rights and duties as against grandmother, who sought by habeas corpus to obtain custody, were the same as if they were infant's lawful parents.
2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
A child's parents cannot, under the due process of law provisions of state and federal Constitutions, be deprived by a judicial proceeding of their parental rights without notice thereof and an opportunity to be heard in opposition thereto (Code 1942, secs. 404, 2818 et seq.).
3. GUARDIAN AND WARD.
A chancery court decree, by which grandmother was appointed guardian of infant's person, without notice, was of no effect as against parties who had lawfully taken infant into their custody immediately after she had become an orphan and stood in loco parentis to her (Code 1942, sec. 404).
4. HABEAS CORPUS.
In habeas corpus proceeding by grandmother who had been appointed guardian of infant, without notice, to obtain custody of infant from parties who had taken infant into their custody immediately after she had become an orphan and who stood in loco parentis to her, evidence sustained award of custody to the parties in loco parentis (Code 1942, sec. 404).
APPEAL from Chancery court of Yalobusa county, HON. V.D. ROWE, Chancellor.
Paul M. Moore and W.J. Evans, both of Calhoun City, for appellant.
The lower court committed error in assuming general chancery court powers over all minors and in refusing to be limited to the powers conferred upon the special court of habeas corpus.
Gray v. Gray, 121 Miss. 541, 83 So. 726; Code of 1942, Secs. 2831, 2835; Cole v. Cole, 194 Miss. 292, 12 So.2d 425.
The guardian of a minor child who has no parents shall have possession and custody of the said minor.
Herndon et ux. v. Bonner, 97 Miss. 328, 52 So. 513; Code of 1942, Sec. 401.
No testimony was permissible under the answer made by appellees. Where the answer is made by anyone not a public official the same must be verified or sworn to. The so-called answer in this cause is neither verified nor sworn to.
Code of 1942, Sec. 2829.
No notice is required to be given to any one of the appointment of a guardian to a minor under our statute except to the natural guardian or parents of the child.
Code of 1942, Sec. 399; 29 C.J.S. 37, Sec. 23.
The Allreds were not acting in loco parentis to the minor child, Patsey Harsten.
See Hibbette et al. v. Baines, 78 Miss. 695, 29 So. 80.
The decree of the chancery court appointing the appellant as guardian of said minor, both as to person and estate, which decree is still in full force and effect, carries with it the legal presumption that it would be to the best interest of said minor to be in the custody of its legal guardian.
Code of 1942, Sec. 401.
A trial court cannot in the determination of a particular case take judicial notice of what was done in any other case even in the same court so as thereby to supply facts essential to the support of the particular case out of those shown in the prior case.
Bridgeman v. Bridgeman, 192 Miss. 800, 6 So.2d 606; Armstrong v. Jones, 198 Miss. 627, 22 So.2d 7.
Stone Stone, of Coffeeville, for appellees.
One who takes an orphan or destitute child in his home and treats it as a member of his own family, educating and supporting it as if it were his child, is said to stand to the child in loco parentis.
20 R.C.L. 593; 39 Am. Jur. 607-609; 46 C.J. 1335, footnote 79.
The person standing in loco parentis should have notice and an opportunity to be heard on the application for letters of guardianship.
Sinquefield v. Valentine, 159 Miss. 144, 132 So. 81, 160 Miss. 61, 133 So. 210, 76 A.L.R. 238 note on page 242; Amis on Divorce and Separation, p. 314.
In child custody suit the court will consider the best interest of the child in determining who is entitled to its custody.
Hibbette v. Baines, 78 Miss. 695, 29 So. 80; Nickle v. Burnett, 122 Miss. 56, 84 So. 138; Kinnaird v. Lowry, 102 Miss. 557, 59 So. 843; Glidewell v. Morris, 89 Miss. 82, 42 So. 537.
The appellant brought this habeas corpus proceeding against the appellees, and vainly sought thereby to obtain the custody of Patsey Harsten, an infant. Patsey became an orphan in March, 1945, and was immediately thereafter taken charge of by the appellees, and has since been cared for by them, and treated as if she were their own child. On August 1, 1945, the appellant, Patsey's grandmother, was appointed by the proper Chancery Court, but without notice, for which the statute, Sec. 404 Code 1942, makes no provision to anyone, as the guardian of Patsey's estate and person (though she appears to have no estate). Shortly thereafter the appellant brought this habeas corpus proceeding Patsey being then about one year old. The blood relationship, if any, of the appellees to Patsey does not appear, though their counsel say that Mrs. Allred is her great-aunt.
The writ of habeas corpus was returnable to, and the trial thereon was before, the Chancellor of the Court which appointed the appellant as Patsey's guardian. Before the judgment herein was rendered the appellees made an unsuccessful attempt to obtain the removal by the Chancery Court of the appellant as such guardian. The Chancellor, not the Chancery Court, then, acting under Sec. 2818 et seq. of the Code of 1942, proceeded with the trial of the habeas corpus proceeding, and (1) overruled the appellant's contention that the decree by which she was appointed, without notice to the appellees, as the guardian of Patsey's person entitled her to Patsey's custody, against the appellees, unless and until she should be removed by the Chancery Court as such guardian; (2) heard evidence as to what was here to Patsey's best interest; and (3) awarded her custody to the appellees.
Appellees having lawfully taken Patsey into their custody, and assumed the obligations to her incident to the parental relation, stand in loco parentis to her, and their rights and duties here are the same as if they were her lawful parents. 46 C.J. 1334; 39 Am. Jur., Parent and Child, Sec. 61; Fortinberry v. Holmes, 89 Miss. 373, 42 So. 799.
A child's parents cannot, under the due process of law provisions of our state and federal constitutions, be deprived by a judicial proceeding of their parental rights without notice thereof, and an opportunity to be heard in opposition thereto. Sinquefield v. Valentine, 159 Miss. 144, 132 So. 81, 76 A.L.R. 238; Id., 160 Miss. 61, 133 So. 210; Bryant v. Brown, 151 Miss. 398, 118 So. 184, 60 A. L.R. 1325. These cases are in accord with the authorities elsewhere, as will appear from the note to the first of them in 76 A.L.R. 242, and with the universal rule governing due process of law in other relations of life. In the Sinquefield case a decree appointing a guardian of the person of an infant without notice to its parents was held void as against them in a habeas corpus proceeding, consequently it governs here, if authority be desired, since the appellees' rights here are the same as they would be if they were Patsey's lawful parents. The decree, therefore, by which the appellant was appointed the guardian of Patsey's person is of no effect as against the appellees.
We are unable to say, on the evidence, that the court below erred in awarding Patsey's custody to the appellees.
The conflict which seems to appear between Sinquefield v. Valentine, supra, which we here follow, and the earlier case of Herndon v. Bonner, 97 Miss. 328, 52 So. 513, is not real, for in the latter the question of the absence of due process of law in the rendition of the decree by which the guardian was appointed was not raised by counsel or discussed by the court.
Affirmed.