Opinion
07-19-1911
In re WILLIAMS.
Memorandum on application to settle the decree. For former opinion, see 77 Atl. 350.
The proofs in this case were opened for the purpose of giving the respondent an opportunity to lay before the court a more particular statement of her income and the sources thereof. Further evidence was taken, and the same has been submitted to the court, with fresh arguments on the whole case. This new evidence has not changed my conclusions with regard to the point on which the case was decided at the first hearing. I still think that the resources of the respondent and those of her husband also are too precarious and uncertain to justify this court in leaving the Williams boy in her custody, with the added likelihood of his adoption. Mr. and Mrs. Murray happen at the present to be in receipt of an income of perhaps $7,500 to $8,000. This, under ordinary circumstances, would be sufficient to justify the court in leaving the child in Mrs. Murray's custody. This income, however, is derived, not from investment of funds, but is a sort of hand to mouth income derived from the exploitation of new views of psychotherapy, which seem to have originated with Mr. and
Mrs. Murray. There seems to be no solid foundation for it, and no certainty that it will last. The respondent is therefore conducting a private charity, which appears to me to be in danger of being overloaded at the first approach of adverse fortune. It may be doubted whether this charity is of such a nature as places it under the visitatorial jurisdiction of the Attorney General. This officer may institute suits for the correction of abuses in public charities. There does not appear to be any case in which the court has acted upon a charity of this nature. Public charities are such as the court can see to the execution of; but how can this private charity of Mrs. Murray's be controlled or carried into execution, and in case of a collapse of the enterprise, who will be sufficiently interested to look after the welfare of the children who might thus be thrown upon the world without guardianship? The situation of the petitioner is entirely different. It is a public charity, and is subject to state supervision. It has a foundation, with an organization of people devoted to its interests and to the promotion of the welfare of the inmates. Besides, it has been specially charged with the care and keeping and the nurturing and the oversight of the particular infant in question. I advise an order directing the delivery of the child to the petitioner.