From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex Rel. Chickering v. Chickering

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 18, 1969
31 A.D.2d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Opinion

March 18, 1969


Judgment dated July 29, 1968, in this habeas corpus proceeding, brought by a former wife against her former husband with respect to the custody of their infant son, is unanimously modified on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion to the extent of remanding the proceedings to Special Term for further hearings before the Justice who presided at the trial of this cause; such hearings to be conducted after the appointment of the Family Counselling Unit, for the purpose of investigating and reporting, concerning the circumstances with respect to the child's present environment and the manner in which he is presently being cared for. Of course, the chief concern in this, as in all such cases, is the welfare of the child. In determining what is for the best interest of the child here involved, in the circumstances of this case, it would be most helpful to know under what conditions he is now living, how he is being cared for, and by whom he is being cared for. For that reason the matter is remanded.

Concur — Eager, J.P., Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.


Summaries of

People ex Rel. Chickering v. Chickering

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 18, 1969
31 A.D.2d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)
Case details for

People ex Rel. Chickering v. Chickering

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. MARINA MAGUIRE CHICKERING, on…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 18, 1969

Citations

31 A.D.2d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Citing Cases

Pact v. Pact

"In determining what is for the best interest of the child here involved, in the circumstances of this case,…

Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans c

on is obliged to use complainant's name and is not, therefore, one of damnum absque injuria. It is the case…