278 N.W. 908 | Minn. | 1938
The appellant attacks the decree on the ground that it should not have been entered pending the final determination of thehabeas corpus proceedings and also pending the making of a final order for alimony and support money in the divorce proceedings in Illinois. He also asserts that the court erred in finding that he had abandoned Ross; that the decree of adoption was a violation of his rights under art. 4, § 1, of the constitution of the United States, which requires that full faith and credit be given in each state to the judicial proceedings in every other state. He states that he is not seeking the custody of the child nor attempting to remove the *462 child to his own home in Illinois; that he is merely fighting for the right and privilege of seeing his son, which right he asserts will be denied him forever if the adoption decree is permitted to stand.
By the Illinois decree Ross was entirely freed from control by his father. For purposes of control, he "is no longer the child of the divorced father." Wilkinson v. Deming,
Decree affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE HILTON, because of illness, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.