Fritts v. Krugh

Krugh.- 1958] v. KRUGH. FRITTS Wаrd. Court —Permanent Child —Probate and 1. Parent jpermanent makes a child probate court which An order of rights parental all acts to sever court of sueh ward 712A.20). (CL 1948, parents natural § Corpus Custody of Children. — Habeas 2. making validity order of a court question of the presented a writ permanent of that ward child seeking recovery parent corpus sued out a natural of habeas adopted. not been custody such child which has of Probate and Child —Jurisdiction Court —Notice. Parent 3. hearing parents on a natural of a child that A notice to the ^{[10] [1] [4]} [2,13] 25 Am ^{[7] [8] [6]} [11,12] [14,15] ^[17] [5, ^[3] Right lected Children 62. lected Children 84. lected lected Children Neglected lected Children 76.§ lected Children 50.§ lected Children 64.§ Neglected Negleeted 31 Am of 31 Am Am31 31 Am 31 Am §26. 11 Am 25 Am 31 Am 25 Am 39 Am 25 Am 31 Am Am Am 31 Am 31 Am Children 53. . Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, parent References Children Jur, Jur, Children Children of child. Juvenile Courts and Juvenile Courts and Jur, Jur, Juvenile Courts and Juvenile Juvenile Courts and Juvenile Habeas Constitutional Law 97. Habeas Parent and Child 24. Habeas Corpus Habeas Juvenile Courts Habeas § § §§ § Juvenile Courts to notice Juvenile Courts and Juvenile Courts and 4, §§ § §§ 7. Corpus Corpus Corpus Courts and Courts and 76 ALR 242. 37; 22, Corpus for Points 39 Am 24. 78, and § § § § 160. 80. 158. 10. 87; § § § 78. Delinquent, Dependent Delinquent, Dependent and Delinquent, Dependent and Delinquent, Delinquent, Dependent Jur, Delinquent, Delinquent, 39 Am in Headnotes Parent and Child Delinquent, Delinquent, Delinquent, before Jur, Dependent Dependent Dependent Parent and Child being deprive]! Dependent Dependent Dependent §§ and and and and Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg and 26. Reports. 354- jurisdiction of the child probate court to take petition adoption gave up putting the child purpose parental rights their were notice sufficient necessary found the facts to the court in the event at stake children, being unnecessary jurisdiction over the it its establish any particular hearing reference to to contain notice of the for 712A.20). (CL 1948, adoption method of § Jurisdiction—Suffiсiency of Peti- Court — 4. Infants —Probate tion. jurisdiction over her probate to take petition to court Mother’s years age, recited children, of which and then 1-1/2 2-1/2 job, quit he did not want the had his said that her husband frightened children, continually, up her beat drank (cid:127) Arkansas, leaving parents’ children, for his home said he was help and to feed the children that she had to financial held, adoption, inadequate to put up them wanted to 1948, 712A.20). negleet (CL allege jurisdictional facts of § Dependent n 5.: of Probate Court. Children —Jurisdiction Same- — persons and the sub- jurisdiction of The.,probate court had negleet hearing complaint purposes of ject matter county, children, resided where the children 2 minor of petition suffi- parties had notice and the mother’s the essential (CL neglect dependency of ciently alleged and the children 712A.20). 1948, § Custody of Probate Court— and Child —Permanent Parent 6. n Jurisdiction. children, aeting custody minor permanent final order of A legal on evidence and rights, must be based parental all sever alone, jurisdic- hearsay report where and on be based cannot though the statute authorizes dispute, even are in tional facts 1948, 712A.17, 712A.20). hearing (CL informality of §§ -Dependent Hearing—Equity. Infants — Children — 7. negleeted dependent as to children juvenile eourt A civil, criminal, essentially legally proceeding but is not equity procedure and chancery evidence of a nature rules 1948, 712A.17, 712A.20). (CL should be followed §§ Dependent Children —Jurisdiction— Court — Courts —Probate 8. Statutes. right juris- powers, inherent its to take probate has no court The govern negleeted dependent children and to their diction entirely (Const being based Constitution statute lives 1948, 712A.2, 712A.20). 1908, 7, j art 13 CL § §§ Krtjgh.' Dependent .of Children- —-Probate Court —Evidence 9. Infants — Neglect. testimony negleet of a child before There must be some power to take of the child probate eourt has disposition (CLS valid order of of the child and enter a - - 712A.18). § 10. Statutes —Construction. possible Statutes will be construed as constitutional wherever permissible interpretation. reasonable and Custody 11. Infants —Probate Court —Permanent —Evidence Neglect. entry custody probate permanent of an order eourt for negleet testimony of a child due to must be based pf seriously neglect such a nature as to establish or threaten long-run (CL 712A.20). child for future § Dependent Children —Probate Court —Jurisdiction—

12. Same — Neglect. Evidence permanent which took An order of the statutory authority clearly exceeded children minor void, negleet, no where there was evidence eourt and was any long past, or from which reason- duration in either of prediction negleet permanent of could of future duration able (CL 1948, 712A.20). be made § Corpus; Judgment Court —Habeas —Probate 13. affecting liberty clearly personal which exceeds the An order authority may by statutory be habeas probate court’s attacked persons eourt had of the corpus, even where the (CL 1948, subject §712A.20). and the matter Statutory and of Parents — Parent Child —Eitness Stand- 14. ards. parents parents question natural as and the of The fitness by statutory negleet of their must be measured their children any particular alternative home standards without reference (CL may 712A.20). which be offered the children § Neglect. Dependent Children —Evidence 15. Same — long-time negleet, or There must be evidence serious .real child, per- threats to the future welfare of overthrow manently, distinguished temporarily, from the natural and legal right parents custody and nurture of their own children, rights being subject sueh not to termination as a dispute, temporary period result of a brief marital or even parents 703.6). (CLS 1956, desertion 1 of the § Reports. of Home. 16. Same —Rе-establishment rights parental legally A father whose have not been severed society’s given every point assistance at should his effort proper home for the to re-establish children for whose care right duty provide. he has the Custody Corpus. 17. Same —Restoration —Habeas children, parental rights Parents of minor whose had not been n held, legally custody, severed entitled to restoration of their petitioned where record shows that since mother custody reunited, court for their have been he has steadily supported family worked his which now ineludes children, house, kept more and that wife has since there has not been shown such unfitness as required would have corpus. dismissal of the writ of habeas Corpus Custody 18. Habeas — of Children. corpus proceedings Habeas pertaining custody to the of children essentially equitable are in nature. Corpus Custody 19. Costs —Habeas — of Children. appeal No costs are corpus allowed on proceedings habeas court, circuit restoring custody where order of 2 children to natural parents is modified and affirmed. Custody Presumption 20. Parent Child — Children — Pitness —Burden of Proof. disproving The burden of parent’s a natural fitness to have cus- tody of it, his or her person challenging own child is since presumption parent there is a person that the’ a fit right the’ parent of a paramount of a child is superior any person. to that of other Corpus 21. Habeas —Nature of Writ. (cid:127) The writ of corpus habeas precious safeguard personal is the liberty. Prejudice. 22. Same: —Res Judicata — Issues decided on corpus writ of habeas would not be with prejudice rights parties may which the have to call attention (cid:127) of the proper facts, any, courts of if raise issues disposed of on corpus.' habeas Smith, Black, Voelker, JJ., dissenting.

Appeal from Berrien; N.), Robinson J. (Thomas Submitted October 11, (Docket 1957. No. Calendar N o. 46,998.) Decided October Rehear- 13, 1958. ing denied December 2, 1958. Krugh. 101 Fritts by Doyle corpus

Habeas A. Fritts, and Liletb Sr., against Krugb, Marguerite Marie H. Jack Krugh, Inez Dale G-raham and Wells Gertrude Gra- regain custody ham to of children taken from them by probate proceedings. granting plaintiffs Orders custody. appeal. Defendants Modifiedand affirmed. plaintiffs. Leckner, E.

Arthur (Charles counsel), &Gore Gore, Williams W. for defendants. J.

Edwards, judge agonizes right reaching “A more about any result in a contested issue than about type other of decision he renders.”1 significant exceptions, With some a com this is panion case to that of ell, Harmsen v. Fizz Mich 351 rehearing granted 4, 1958, March in which this petition corpus Court dealt with a for writ of habeas by granted relation to children, heard before and judge procedural the same circuit because errors claimed to have been made the same judge. judge,

In case, too, circuit hear- after ing corpus, the writ habeas' entered orders removing would the effect of 2 children proposed adoptive from placed by probate had homes where been authority returning parental custody.' them to The foster with whom the children have lived most their lives to appeal. date story abrupt

This with the aban- starts somewhat of a minor donment mother small children Judge, Botein, p Trial 273. 2 Opinion 60.—Reportee. rehearing, 354 Mich Reports. 354.

102 July The mother tells of 195'2. her husband story simply: Doyle “My and the wife Fritts, Lileth name is Sally Doyle Fritts, mother of I am the

Fritts. the children December Sally was case. born involved Doyle was born December 1949. * * * I am 24. 1951. your-birth? “Q. the date isWhat * ** July 25, “A. “Q. 1931. your Directing day attention first July, you living? 1952,where were “A. Watervliet. Michigan? “Q. “A. Yes. prior your liv- that date was husband “Q. And you?

ing with “A. No. living you July ? he with

“Q. Prior to 1st was “A. No. you that “Q. before date Did he leave sometime juvenile you at the division that called here ? court Yes,

“A. hе left. argument you “Q. And that result some was ? had there

“A. Yes. away you long “Q. had he before And how been here? came down “A. About weeks. Doyle during you “Q. have And time did

Sally you ? with I I from him within the weeks. “A. Yes. heard Knob, he He went to Bald where went. knew had there. His mother and Arkansas. He relatives I immedi- locate him wrote his mother father. To away. My ately. I had while he was husband $20 gave he left. it to me before you argument “Q. an he Did before left? “A. Yes. you going?- “Q. And did he tell he where was No. “A. ' Krugh.' .v. any money you He Did sénd within

“Q. that' ? weeks “A. No. you telling person charge “Q. Do remember you division of the had ho your

milk for children?

“A. Yes. something “Q. Tell the court about that. I went to the law. “A. Well, police? mean You

“Q.

“A. Yes. “Q. Goon. give asked And them some “A. me milk and my money, paid but some husband it back. police give you “Q. Did at Watervliet some money?

“A. Yes. your paid “Q. And husband them ? back “A. Yes. you juvenile “Q. Did come down court alone ? {‘A. Yes. happened you “Q. And what when went to the juvenile court? just to I “A. Well, went and told Mrs. Malcolm put my up I adoption; wanted children that I couldn’t take care them. you sign anything day? “Q. And did signed paper I Yes, “A. she made out children. signed paper a “Q. You who out? made think

“A. Mrs. Malcolm. I what that’s her name is. judge’s “Q. name is Malcolm his Hatfield; you talking

wife Malcolm is Mrs. Hatfield. Are you talking her, or are about about Mrs. Milton? “A. Mrs. Milton. Yes, my “Q. Let the record show that. I have in hands filé a division of the county, top for Berrien which is evidence, and on you paper you your signature show and ask if n , appears paper . on that ?

“A. Yes. ,[Oet. Michigan Reports. ' you say paper you to when refer “Q. that the Is

you signed paper?

“A. Yes. signed you you it? read all this before “Q. Did Yes. “A. you told Mrs. Milton? what “Q. And that is “A. Yes. day? .your children that “Q. were Where They my with sister. “A. “Q. was your sister? You left them with “A. Yes. you go later? “Q. the court Did have occasion “A. Yes. days many later? “Q. How days later. “A. I went purpose the thing. of that call? “Q. What was they if was I to see “A. wаnted The same put adoption. going up I I knew couldn’t them for of them. take care “Q. “A. Yes. them that? You asked sign They me me told wanted days adoption papers I children. Two later for the Judge paper, signed Hatfield, front of 1 in another sign. adoption paper is to This he wanted me

the the speaking paper. I asked for of, am where I guardian appointment ad of Hazel as Wallsmith day. signed signed the that I That was what I litem. 1 in front of ‘ Judge July I Hatfield, 3d. 2. These I them old was. told how you paper in file another this “Q. Now, I show signature and Marie Fritts which hears ask which Lileth paper signature appears you your on if this I will read. “A. Yes. undersigned being (Reading): “Q. ‘The having legitimate of the minor child and mother said authority

legal consent, make execute this do and adoption hereby child and the said consent peti- change prayed for in child, as name said you sign that? of said Did tion court.’ of that?

“The the date Court: isWhat ; - Krugh.' July and 2, 1952; Leckner: The date is that “Mr. you signed Doyle, just another and do with has to Sally? like it signed right, for both. Hazel ‘Wall- “A. That’s signed I left the same time. that at Watervliet smith July. my after the 1st I sister’s went stayed day stayed I he left and with there a after my husband. I went back children I hack her until went my gave up. bim after I weeks to I Wichita, about brought my I down here and went to children My husband there.” Kansas. was: July petition signed by the mother The sworn place before served most these facts 1, 1952, probate court: oe Michigan, “State No. Cause ...-. county Berrien, “The Juvenile Division. petition Sally concerning matter Ann “In Doyle Fritts, Almo Minor. Fritts, Jr., respectfully represent Marie “I, Fritts, Lileth Long’s 2d house from I reside US-12 Tele- county, in said and make vision petition Watervliet mother represent are “I further said children resi- county, in Berrien now dents Watervliet residing under the with and control of and father ......was born on mother, Sally, was horn Dec. ” Doyle, 17, __ represent upon furthеr information and belief “I quit job. father has his He that told me children’s has said that he want children. He doesn’t his drinks up frightens continually me heats The father of these children said he children. was going Knob, Arkansas, with Mr. and Bald c/o police appeal I had to Mrs. Lester Fritts. for the children week for milk at last Coloma put adoptive in an like to the children “I would they cared home where will be well for. Reports. names,-relationship, represent that the “I further and-guardian

ages of kin nearest and residences I are as am informed and ...., believe, of said child’ as follows: pray juvenile court take that therefore, .“I. n

jurisdiction of child. said

/S/ DOYLE FRITTS “MRS. MARIE LILETH FRITTS-’ “P.O. hearing prior appears clear, however, It rejoined petition her husband the mother Knob, Arkansas, former home Bald at his return their determined to seek then receipt on the of notice children. On adoption petition, the father wrote judge:

“7-22-52 “Mrs. Malcolm Hatfield Sally my you regarding writing children “I am things Doyle my have talk wife Ann Me Jr. home for are chil- ‍‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‍to make a over we have decided get if befor could them dren. to know we Wish August. me know soon. and let 4th of If write so Truly “Your

“Doyle Fritts “My add—

Doyle Fritts

5247 N. Arkansas St.

Wichita, Kansas.” n ' Krugh. Pritts 1958.] 4, 1952, of August date hearing when And mother were and her Pritts Mrs. arrived, Mr. hearing that Mr. Pritts’ version courtroom. follows: judge to the prohate letter I wrote “After office I the judge’s Joseph. appeared to St. came Í me me and told wrote judge 4th. The August on I here. There was held, so would hearing when I when office judge’s no stenographer was me. lawyer representing no There was appeared. Nobody suggested I was lawyer. that I aget to me was No one not was sworn. wife My not sworn. there. stenographer there was I said no sworn. were in when you “Q. happened us what Tell there? room of the she paper read the copy Milton

“A. Mrs. it the through reading got and when she there, had if time, after months we within, got told us judge that we the kids back.” got would see he good, along Mrs. Prances the county agent, read report The referred recited the facts previously Milton, con- separate detailed 3 Her also report above. un- had and the probate judge at which she ferences from mother attempted to dissuade the successfully the children. of giving up intention her announced before drafted, however, was apparently report and their of the parents of the reconciliation advice children. The report their to regain to seek decision concluded: I of the In view preceding,

“Recommendation: of these security future for the that, recommend wards of this permanent made children, they be Institute Michigan Childrens .and committed consent to giving that institution purpose for the their ' adoption.” testi- county agent, gave the assistant Milton, Mrs. 4th hearing to the August pertaining mony Reports. quoted previously from from different much plaintiff: August on at the time “Q. Now, present, you Milton? Mrs. were 4th, I understand I was. “A. present? And Mr. Fritts that occasion was “Q. “A. I present, yes. think he the date was that was Indiana. mother from On her Mrs. Fritts and And, that occasion presence report, I read the probate judge present. people. was all those say anything and Mrs. did Mr. “Q. And falsity. report, of it the truth about about on that occasion? my to remembrance. “A. Not say judge you did “Q. what, remember, if And ? were there Frittses on that occasion while or do awhile, with them and then . talked Well,, “A. he gave and whenever—I’m decision, he' his at the end Judge stenographer, Hatfield but whenever not a anything always I gave asked down at the end decision his get repeat slowly I it it so that could him to it to him word I read back word; and

word he had it down verbatim as that knew I for word so he gave his decision. it, happened that occasion? that “Q. And always I I so am sure did Wеll, that, I did “A. that time. it on that was decision oc-

“The Court: his What casion? My that he to find out is wished “A. remembrance adjust in the new the children would homes whether they had been sent. to . days? They a had been there few “The Court: they adjust Ohj yes. if And didn’t those “A. period a in case time, if at the end homes the children adjust and if homes, did not in those they prove parents that could were natural respect give willing, every capable them desirable able in they then the first homes, would be line to be considered.” Krugh.' Feitts hearing, probate judge the end of the en- At following pertaining Sally order Ann tered Doyle: pertaining to a one similar Sally hereby Ann “It that said ordered, is hereby permanent is is made Fritts be and she hereby committed to the court and ward of this is Arbor, Institute at Ann Michi- Children’s subject regulations governing gan, the rules purpose adoption. and for institution, that it further this child ordered, “And should adjust any present reason fail to in her environ- the natural at that time ment, should prove they been satis- able re-establish factory properly family life and then are able line for child, care for this will be first in replacement child.” by making noted that “permanent orders, It should be these childrén wards” of these parental rights if all acted to sever court, valid, § parents to these children. 712A- of these CL [598.20]). (Stat Supp § Ann Cum 27.3178 .20 corpus proceeding the circuit before The habeas question pose appeal us court and before this (It squarely orders valid. as these were to whether although petitions pending, are that, should noted subsequent adoption been en- have ever no orders tered.) opinion judge’s trial found the order parents

probate judge the notice to the void because hearing to commitment to the did not refer Michigan Children’s Institute. agree. tell the did The notice do "VVe subject upon contemplated hеaring was spe- adoption. custody No more permanent given tell to them have been information could cific parental rights children were to their

that their necessary found the the court event In the at stake. jurisdiction children, over its to facts establish no: Michigan Reports. [Oct.: 354.. dispositions various were available to the judge (CLS § [Stat. under the statute 1956, 712A.18 Supp § 27.3178(598.18)]). Ann 1957 Cum It was hearing not essential for tbe notice of to contain any particular adoption. to reference method of petition Nor do we feel that the which the hearing inadequate allege juris was based was neglect. (See Fizzell, dictional facts of Harmsen v. 95-97.) 351Mich 86, procedural deficiency

In we find no short, in this record of sufficient of habeas substance warrant use

corpus; again: and we note pry legal diligence “For with at us the technical pertain in old cases which to child crevices and adoption spring open matters could a Pandora’s Harmsen, box of troubles.” 351 Mich 86, 106. After much this has been it said, still is true that glaring there is revealed this record a defect undoubtedly circuit, of substance which moved the judge to his basic decision in case and which justify remedy serves his use of the of habeas corpus. distinguished group juvenile judges

A court recently published study juvenile' has a careful proceedings. In it court of a characteristics juvenile court noted: are aspects hearing, “There to a are purely legal socio-legal. 2 of which are and the 3d They (1) jurisdiction are: the determination of (2) adjudication hear the case; the issue of delinquency, (or neglect dependency); (3) disposition. determination ... necessary jurisdictional “It is first to determine the alleged purview i.e., that the act facts, falls within the fixing of the subject the court’s statutes necessary parties and that mattеr, all given requirements been due notice so that the of (cid:127) process- . due have been met. .. , n 1958]. 111; Krugh. v v.- .'“Having'determined jurisdic- that the court has subject person, matter of both the court tion proceed then to determine should the facts.” Na- Probation and Parole for Association, tional Guides Judges, pp 59, Juvenile Court 60. probate We believe the court had of persons subject purposes and the matter for hearing neglect complaint. The resided children county- parties had concerned. essential petition notice. The mother’s in the instant case allege neglect dependency 2 of the served alleged- the fa- The essential facts were children. ther’s break-up abandonment of them., her and family support any of the absence the children. day however, arrived,

When set ample that the facts on notice the pertaining court .was materially neglect changed had right question take that the of the court’s dispute. In the absence children was these July legal representation, 22d letter father’s regarded placing issue should have been dispute. neglect in dispute, jurisdictional even facts are

Where informality though of hear the statute authorizes Supp (CL ing § [Stat Ann 1957 Cum 712A.17 1948, permanent cus 27.3178(598.17)]), § a final order rights parental acting based tody must be all to sever hearsay legal and cannot be based evidence on report Hill, re In Harmsen, 86, 103; 351 Mich alone. (247 591). App P 78 Cal (183 People NE Lewis, 260 NY See, also, Inquiry Mantell, 1001); Neb re In 86 ALR 1122). (62 43 ALR2d NW2d dispute facts, the basic about there-is “Where Placing children be sworn. witnesses should adult under discretion sound should oath any. provisions, It is statutory if subject to court, Michigan Reports. permit parents, good policy wit- child, and testimony give in narrative form with as nesses to few remembered, however, objections possible. as It should be technical juvenile that the court hear- essentially legally ing a not but criminal, is chancery proceeding of and the rules nature, civil equity procedure be followed. and evidence should Unimportant emphasized. technicalities need be judge hearsay eliminate addition, In accept should testimony competent only. witnesses rights Guaranteeing the basic the individual is judge though responsibility of a or even the child parents may not be aware of or claim them his at the time.” National Probation and Parole Asso- Judges, p ciation, for 61. Guides Juvenile Court glaring proceeding The defect which we pertains (or referred have the evidence lack thereof) presented hearing upon at the probate judge based his order. probate note at the outset that the

We has powers. right no inherent Its to take entirely govern of children and to their lives is based Michigan Constitution statute. Consti- (1908), provides §13, tution art that: county organized judicial purposes, “In for each probate jurisdiction, abe court. The there shall powers thereof shall judges and duties of courts and of the such by prescribed law, shall also original jurisdiction juvenile in all cases of delinquents dependents.” provides: statute Our “Except provided herein, as division * * * court shall have: “(b) proceedings concerning any Jurisdiction years age county child under 17 found within the “(1) parent person legally or Whose other re- sponsible care and maintenance.of child, such neglects provide to do when able or so, refuses Krugh. required support, necessary education proper or necessary surgical or other care law, medical, well-being, is abandoned or who morals or health, his guardian or who parents, custodian, or other his guardian proper without otherwise (Stat § ship.” Supp Ann 1957 Cum 712A.2 CLS §27.3178[598.2]).* neglect provides, where in cases section Another enter dependency for the court to established, is or either custody permanent temporary orders: or custody any supplemental involving shall state court in all cases “The disposition or order for in the placed disposition the child is whether of order custody permanent temporary of the court. or the placed temporary custody the in the of child is If disposition supplemental provid- no order of court, custody, containing any ing permanent or- other except disposition at a of shall be made der pro- pursuant vided of or notice summons issuance chapter. and 13 of 12 this If sections custody placed permanent of court, child all parental rights though rights terminated, are such may position.” supplemental by a order be reinstated of dis- (Stat § 712A.20 Ann 1948, CL 1957 Cum 27.3178[598.20]). Supp § testimony neg- must, There therefore, be some of power court lect before has the to take jurisdiction child and to enter valid order disposition (CLS 1956, under section of the code 27.3178(598.- Supp § [Stat § 712A.18 Ann Cum 1957 Í8)]). problem, After some consideration of we dis- testimony tinguish here between would support taking temporary order afford for an cus- neglect necessary tody for reasons permanent custody support order.

contained ^[*] Prior in subdivision amendment (a) (6) PA CL 1953, 1948, No § 193, 7Í2A.2. matter was ['Oct. Eeports. 354 ..Michigan

114 clearly spelled Such, may be found a distinction . 20) quoted (section Yet above. in the statute out unconstitutionality the statute the obvious we note neglect temporary purely could suffice if facts custody permanent entry order support of a example, parental rights. severing Where, all family wholly the sudden is confronted with normal a emergency proven destroyed by fire—the a house proper the next for the childrеn shelter lack 24 or 48 hours process, support concept of due our not, could under taking per-

an order rights. severing parental all manent legislation from unconstitution to save seekWe permis ally possible reasonable wherever interpretation. People Piasecki, 333 Mich v. sible Thomp City Cady 499; Detroit, 289 Mich v. 122; Screws v. 624; Mich General, 261 son Auditor v. (65 89 L ed 1031, 91 Ct States, 325 S US United 1495, 301 bor Relations Manfg. 1330); Davis, v. ALR Co. Anniston 162 1143); (57 National La 81 L ed 816, Ct 337 S US Laughlin Steel Cor & Board Jones (57 poration, L ed S Ct US Valley 1352); ALR Author Tennessee Ashwander v. 688). ity, (56 L ed 466, 80 288 S Ct 297 US legislative plainly . forth intent we find the set Here, “temporary” “perma- in the nent.” of the words use legislative intent, In with accordance temporary neglect of evidence that, we hold while entry taking temporary may order of an suffice custody permanent custody, entry order for of an upon testimony neglect of must be based due seriously as to establish threaten a nature such long-run neglect future. for the of the child hearing, at the time of case, our instant In neglect, judge probate him no before evidence had past, long or from which duration either of neglect per- prediction any of future reasonable taking made. The order be duration could manent 115 Krtjgh. clearly permanent exceeded of these children authority statutory void. of the court and was jurisdiction of a court has where, here, as Even persons subject affect an order matter, and the the ing liberty clearly

personal the court’s which exceeds authority may statutory attacked habeas be corpus. Allen, 139 Mills, 325; In 131 Mich In re re Joseph Nowack, In Mich 544. 712; re Mich 647; Freedman, 303 Mich Freedman v. See, also, McKinney, Mills, In re 135 US 190; 326 Mich In re 107); (10 Bonner, In re L 762, 34 ed CtS 149); (14 Ha Jur, 25 Am 323, 38 L ed S Ct US beas Corpus, §§ 83. 78-80, probate- by the entered hold the orders

We permanent custody judge taking children of these jurisdic- proof of for want of essential were void tionаl facts neglect. provisional aspect serve order Nor did the inappro- invalidity. totally It is its basic obviate advantages weigh priate' of a foster home parents. legal against the home of the natural and neglect question and the Their fitness statutory measured must be their children any particular al- reference without standards may offered the children. home ternative neglect such as we the absence In evidence very preamble to the sections to, referred juveniles dealing probate establishes with code of the custody. parental preference strong chapter, proceeding under this “While division termed shall be probate' court. chapter “Proceedings not be shall under proceedings. criminal to be deemed liberally chapter construed shall be “This coming within child that each end guidance and care, receive such the court shall preferably con- home; own as will be his control, Michigan Reports. to the ducive child’s welfare and best interest of the State and that when such child is removed from parents the control of his him care as the court shall secure for nearly possible equivalent as to the care given by been should have to him them.” CL (Stat § Supp § 1948, 712A.1 Ann 1957 Cum 27.3178 [598.1]). long-time

There must neglect, be real evidence of or serious threats the future welfare of the child, permanently legal to of right overthrow the natural and parents nurture their own (Stat § children. CLS 703.6 Ann 1957 Cum Supp § [206]); Goldinger, 27.3178 In re 207 Mich Burkhardt 99; Burkhardt, 286 Mich 526; Rie rights mersma v. Riemersma, 311 Mich 453. Such subject are not to termination aas result of a brief dispute, by temporary period marital or even by parents. desertion In Harmsen, 351 Mich 86, 110,we said: are not “We unmindful the fact that a father parental rights legally whose have not been severed given society’s every point should be assistance at proper in his effort to re-establish a children for whose care he has the home for the right duty provide.” present greater record, On there was even rea- society attempt help son for reunite and restore family. plight are not unmoved We of the foster parents possibility damage 'of real judge lives these children. The circuit noted: testimony “The taken at the in this court Krugh Marguerite discloses that H. Jack R. Krugh and Dale Wells Graham and Inez Gertrude providing support Graham, now care, homes and Doyle Sally and education for Almo Fritts and Ann respectively, qualified every respect Fritts, are as possible as foster of said children it Krttgh. (cid:127) Fritts 117 v. They giving all a obtain. are full measure devo- spirit love and affection to tion, these children as nothing of unselfishness self sacrifice that leaves challenge. The children are themselves shown adjusted happy present to be well in their en- fully responsive vironment, they to excellent care receiving parents.” are from these foster greatly regretted It original appeal to be that the from the denial permanent of a motion to vacate the custody promptly brought order was not to issue. say We cannot, however, this these record that parents of limited education and means had ever regain abandoned their efforts 2 to their children. testimony pertaining We also note such to recent years parents. as bears the fitness of the Two separations more brief of man and wife in 1955were by prompt followed reconciliation. The basic facts appear to be that the father 2 and mother of our together intervening years; children have lived steadily supported that he has worked fam- his ily; kept that she has house and borne more chil- and at the time of dren; before the circuit history family court there awas of an intact marred by arguments separations. 3 marital and brief We say prepared are not of and them- these prove sufficeto such selves unfitness as would have required judge petition. the circuit their dismiss regard corpus proceedings pertaining

We habeas custody essentially equitable as nature. In re 240; Mich Harmsen 351 Mich 86. Leu, Fizzell, affirm judge of the circuit but re We mand decision entry allówiríg

these matters for orders physical reasonable time for the transfer present parents ‍‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‍from under foster supervision appropriate the with the arm of the court

purpose damage occasioning little as possible in the of these lives children. and affirmed. No

Modified costs. Reports.

ADDENDUM legal important human and issues

In view of the opinions conflicting posed herein, this ease and the re-emphasize sign opinion who desire those points. several petition judge circuit who heard corpus the orders of Ber- found of habeas writ county probate to be division rien process appellate his of our and in the course void, point review. These before us on this is decision orders were August 1952. entered carefully us the of the record Let note state before There court on that was a the complaint. date. sworn neglect dependency allegations of

Its by parents disputed who, reunited, the were were present contest it. as this in the courtroom to As far except the discloses, no called witness was record report largely county agent was on whose based Nothing resembling legal she had been told. what neglect of or offered to establish abuse evidence was charges as the record contains of the children. Such pertaining mother to the father’s treatment any apparently and, been tried in court have never by complaint form the in uttered under oath while repeated her in the hus- mother, have never been presence right confrontation and with band’s effect, mother’s own state- In cross-examination. in the midst of marital her a been husband ments about hearsay dispute repeated em- in form regain custody ployed her own defeat efforts that funda- reiterate where the her We children. dispute, neglect our Con- are facts mental require legal some evidence statute stitution jurisdiction. support assertion court’s disputed again orders reference make We previously void: held we have Sally ordered, hereby Ann that the said “It is hereby permanent ward made a and she Fritts be Krttgh. of this court and is hereby committed to the Michi- gan Children’s Institute at Ann Arbor, Michigan, subject the rules and regulations that governing institution, and for the purpose of adoption. “And it is further ordered, that should this child for any reason fail to adjust present her environ ment, and should the natural parents at that time prove they have been able to re-establish sat isfactory family life and are then able to properly care for child, they will be first in line for the replacement of this child.”* concept relationship his

the family entertained probate judge, and exemplified in his orders, is one for which we find no warrant the law of this or, State for that matter, any one of these United States.

It will be noted these orders do not indicate a final judgment part probate judge on the facts presented to him that parents are either unable, unwilling incapable offering proper home and to these guardianship children. On the contrary, the orders on their face suggest conclusion that, while well may prove children, to be proper custodians their own probate had, in judge his succeeded in view, finding of each them who were superior those whom the nature and had Deity provided. have

We noted the previously preference strong in the parental guardianship prefatory para- juvenile to the of sections our code graph probate case, in a our case law. In recent Michigan supreme court of Minnesota phrased prefer- this ence thus:

“It too well settled to require is citations that of right a to the of a child is parent of any person; or to that other paramount superior a be a fit and suitable that mother is presumed ^[*] A similarly-worded order was entered relation to Doyle Fritts.

,120 Reports. child; care of her with the person be entrusted disproving presumption of burden upon person challenging Larson, In re it.” rests 453). (91 Minn 490 NW2d orders discretion as these no such We believe of this is vested law State seem assert sitting probate judge division, a in the finding upon made, a could be absent facts which legal parents of a child had that the natural and par- incapable discharging the duties become according accepted standards enthood neglected, society, had their conduct so or own as to constitute their children or abandoned abused an rights parent- of their abdication and waiver hood. beyond the entered were view,

In the orders ou-r judge statutory power conferred corpus language our habeas and were void. In the * * * has court § of such act, “the (Stat Ann 637.29 been exceeded.” CL 27.2272). § concept writ of habeas turn to the of the

nowWe corpus no There need at in this case. issue development great history of the recite the use writ made of this of freedom which of last resort. courts think our or nation Nor do we State development point of civilized have reached such that powers. should this writ exercised under narrowly circumscribеd. now be suggestion the court to us that is made corpus order and finds a court of habeas hears writ depriva- justification the detention offered in tion whether only inquire may as to concerned, of freedom jurisdiction had or not the other (1) jurisdiction persons; of the sense the narrow subject (2) jurisdiction matter and dispute. advantage would have This view “ju- usages many past resolving varying of the word Krugh. 121 Fbitts v. disadvantage depriving But it has the risdietion.” corpus in a on a the courts of the writ habeas power unjust an strike down order which patently vires, ultra or an order entered in ob rights. vious violation of constitutional The United many supreme court has times, State cases great employed importance, historic a broader con parte cept corpus. power Lange, Ex habeas (21 (85 US) 872); Nielsen, 18 163 L Hans ed Wall (9 118); Petitioner, 131 176 S 33 L ed 672, US Ct Dempsey, (43 Moore v. 261 86 ed 265, US S Ct 67 L 543); (58 Zerbst, Johnson v. 304 458 Ct 1019, US S 357); 82 L ed 1461, Johnston, 146 ALR. v. Bowen (59 455); 306 US 19 83 L 442, S Ct ed Walker v. (61 830); Johnston, 312 L 574, US 275 S Ct 85 ed Mayo, (68 Wade v. 92 L ed 1270, 334 672 Ct US S 1647). employed This Court has likewise the same powers broad view of corpus. the writ of habeas Mills, In re 325; Allen, 131 Mich In re 139 In 712; Nowack, Mich re Freedman 544; Mich McKinney, Freedman, In re 647; Mich In Maddox, Mich 190; re 351 Mich 358. discussing arguments

In for restrictions corpus, the use of the writ habeas Mr. Chief Jus- Hughes tice said: broadly rule,

“But the often not stated, is to be taken mean that the mere fact that the court petitioner jurisdiction, which tried the had assumed necessarily deprives authority another court of grant in the corpus. a writ of habeas As court said Coy, (8 In 731, case of re 127 US Ct S 274), 32 L ed the broad statement of the rule certainly go was mean, intended to so far as example, ‘that because a Federal court tries prisoner ordinary for an common-law offense, as burglary, battery, larceny, assault and with no proof any against averment or offense the United any States, or connection awith statute of the Unitеd Reports. 354

122 by imprisonment, he can punishes him States, corpus by the because habeas released not be Despite jurisdiction.’ him had assumed tried juris the absence court, trial action the the (see In may appear face of the record S Ct on the diction 658] [7 ; 556, 30 L ed Snow, 274 120 US re [9 183 Ct Petitioner, 176, 131 US S Nielsen, Hans remedy corpus 118]) the of habeas L 33 ed 672, pun prisoner may a the from release be needed to -manifestly by imposed without a court ishment judgment. pass jurisdiction to forgotten that the of habeas writ “It must never liberty precious safeguard personal corpus is the higher duty maintain it un- no than to there is Lange, (85 US) parte impaired. Ex 163 Wall 872).” (21 Johnston, L Bowen US ed v. 455). (59 L Ct ed 26, 27 S upon the hold that the orders entered record We by participating hearing, the of this as certified us concept represented parties, an of the erroneous upon conveyed power court- statute the being sitting juvenile division, based that, rep- upon permanent neglect, no evidence of miscarriage justice as a fundamental resented petitioners statutory pow- the to these and exceeded probate judge them. who entered ers previously, that a hold indicated we likewise As deprivation parental rights, permanent based repre- upon here, certified to us would record of due statute, if violation sent, authorized process are concerned. of law far as these presently petitioners have that these believe We petition remedy here the writ other than the no suggestion that motion to restore considered. equivalent rights parental once lost is right rights in not were severed contend that such does of both and Constitution violation in our view disagreement. statute noting require of our more than the Krtjgh. previously that after deter- indicated We mining legal pertaining рermanent issue corpus custody by writ of orders attacked habeas judge had him, circuit the additional before duty, corpus proceedings relation since habeas essentially equitable in children are nature, to concern himself with welfare find children as of the time heard case. We he him to no reason written record before regard. duty hold that he in in failed his It in is, course, that what we decide obvious judicata only relation to to the res as this case becomes litigated and decided at issues which were petition for the circuit court of on writ preju- corpus, it no habeas and that constitutes parties may any rights to to dice have which any, proper call the if facts, attention of the courts disposed there. raise issues J., JJ., Dethmers, Carr, Kelly, C. con- J. with Edwards, curred {dissenting). J. We would well do to take Smith, proposed hard second look at what is here. proposed It is that we hold to be “void” the order by probate made fortunate respecting these un- who,

children in their short lives, have known so much of what some of us would describe neglect. proposed, as It is let us stress, not that probate we find judge determination of the merely utterly erroneous, but to be void. are We complete nullity. it judg- hold that ais A “void” grounds rights, ment, as we all know, no forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vul- any (thus nerable to here, or manner of collateral attack corpus). habeas No statute of limitations repose holdings, thought runs its the matters thereby judicata, to be years settled are not res Beports. may grown, dim memories when later, any disgruntled regarded vested, rights long as been reopen more may and once litigant the old wound though depths. trial and as probe And it is then its adjudication answer been. It is no never had happen say society, particularly things in a modern cannot that such security children’s where the Sally speaks itself. case This is involved. lives years us, was before of the children Fritts, one 2-1/2 put petitioned her chil- age her mother when adoptive will be well home where “in an dren may be at that time The for.” situation cared investiga- report part, gleaned, from the in county adoption, the assistant made tion part, agent. follows: states, It family left his father drinker was “The times several mother tried than once. more to them the just away. left give At she last her children crying division the office keep she would not said that court. She money.” them if she had writing Sally years age. At this is almost 9 Most spent of her life now has been the home she years few knows and but plight of The childhood remain. up giving her of the mother at time the of tragic beyond children was But is it within words. power many our to salve after those wounds these years? tragedy we Are now re-create her of of lives the children? And what of the situation through those who have cared for these children years infancy? long the of problem. then, This, our Mr. is Justice Edwards probate taking holds that the order of the court permanent jurisdiction of children was en- these “jurisdiction” “void.” tered without and therefore keep constantly It well us that would be before possibly is the one all others this situation above Krugh. the the of a court should law which orders every security finality at our be vested with namely, involving and cus- command, that the care very tody situation of children. Yet it tois proposed devastating apply that it is weapon the most armory, legal of in the entire the doctrine invalidity, jurisdiction, complete of of of nul- lack lity. agree. only we satisfied cannot Not are We particular evidentiary showing the made in this as to keenly prec- of the force case, but we are aware of seсurity jeopardize the have no wish to edent and holding past present of orders custodial part, subsequent disagreement, with on our that proofs probate sufficiency court, probate neglect (or question) means like that jurisdiction, order was no and that its court had any subject to attack at time. collateral void, is say by the errors made courts This is not to original may jurisdiction There not be corrected. provided orderly process appeal for these an is matters and it should be timely are not utilized. We in which the with the situation confronted, then, great practicable only was of redress avenue sought corpus. here is writ of habeas What historic is simply corpus of the writ of habeas substitution appeal right under the statute, or, for election at parents, enjoyed by right for the these any probate apply court for a them at time supplemental disposition. It order is new simply, approve corpus proposed, the habeas we said, it the evidence because, is it no acted weak that had was so it and, hence, enter the order was proposed, in here terms cost of what is “void.” staggering. How involved, human interests may many likewise be called other custodial orders passed ap- many years without after “void” knowing. way Much peal de- no would we have Reposts. pend upon might the strictness with which we view showing disposed however, made. We are now, experiment. to undertake that all-pervading what error Just is this so its nullity process? a commission makes of the court’s pro- judge irregularities pointed The circuit probate employed by judge. how- These, cedures jurisdictional. phase not were this ever, case On agree analysis I with the of Mr. careful Justice probate spite such, did, court Edwards. persons and over оbtain over per- subject error so lies the Where, then, matter. nullity? probate a order nicious as According make “glar- a there is to Mr. Justice Edwards “presented ing at the defect” in evidence probate judge order.” And his which the based glaring told, we are was, defect? There what is this neglect, evidence insufficient just point, at we reach the crux of the So, opinion between some There is a difference case: of probate sufficiency on the and the our Court neglect. assume, We will of the evidence arguendo, deficiency, that our that there was such although believing right, are we are brethren so Supreme keenly that we are aware Court always always right are but that we are we because right any Supreme At are the we Court. because will error. assume, we was rate, court, Edwards holds that this makes its order Mr. Justice jurisdiction, order that its court lost “void,” nullity, in that all that was done amount- short, awas travesty pompous, of make cruel no more than ed to merely hold order errone- are we to Not believe. subject emphasize, all other correction as ous, we but void. And this corrected, are in the law errors “neglect”?) (i.e., respect there to a was matter with opinion may respect wide differences with exist.,among honestly and sincere men, reasonable Kritgh. Fritts of the law (the and with to a branch welfare respect need in which the most children) pressing of adjudication exists. security lurk- the pitfalls

The case before us well illustrates time the At the every ing step path proposed. had the August 4th, hearing the mother that the before it a sworn petition con- “he drinks children, not that father want his did chil- the which frightens me up, beats tinually had and that she that the father left them dren,” had authorities to go public found it necessary county of the assistant aid. had also report He not first break-up is agent “this that there It family appears Fritts has undergone. life. married most their during has been trouble in- there. On of constant discord is pattern appear it would formation which has been gathered, discord together, do live parents if chil- on their a influence pernicious would be most chil- live together, do not dren. If security.” have no dren would only did the probate judge

But have before instruments, him at with these their hearing themselves, he the parents but had and while authors, we do not know what since no precisely transpired, do tran- taken, notes were we stenographic 16th, at which hearing September dated scribed 4th was in detail. August explored the hearing (September did Mr. 16th) no time this date At against made charges him, fit refute the see Fritts would seem itself suggest of action which a course had been there- who slandered person normal any Brother discord, marital which my to the by. As instances, we find in the confine to isolated would assistant following (the 16th the September record of stand): on the agent county -Reports. disclose,

“Q: Do records that Mr. told your you he prior wanted his children back Í Yes,

“A. he called me. I made an appointment with him; he came over and he said wanted get children back. They admitted their life had family history been discord but to do planned better.”

The fruition of their to do plans may better the fact that part, by Mrs. while in judged, Fritts, and less than a before the Kansas, year habeas for divorce on the corpus hearing, petitioned grounds mental cruel- neglect of extreme “gross duty of. a court order Mr. ty,” and obtained restraining January from her. was on molesting This in court, 1955. she was back assert- 25th, On June “took him that on his back ing she, promises, relying man and wife” but together lived as they again he was that, subsequent thereto, again guilty cruelty mental and extrеme neglect duty “gross re- obtained a toward the she plaintiff,” again in hear- that the also, order. observe, We straining the on Mrs. Fritts confirmed September 16th, ing coupling her alleged petition, truth of the matters that the assertion she wanted however, with this, to with Finally, respect returned to her. children fact the judgment in view hearing, this utterly so being is assailed as judge of the probate void, order to render his in foundation lacking him that his statement in all to think, we fairness be made should the close made at opinion: of our part cross-examina- has, with substantial mother “This her and I want to happened out what brought tion, the way her wishes all followed that we this,

know identically children those placing through her to dissuade after trying wanted home she kind of point occasions. The on 3 different action from this " .129 Krugh. Fritts:.v. children would suffer that the to know is her I want I don’t at time. greatly moved if were (cid:127) give opinion , to an want now.” charges, repeated nndenied, in all If of these probate judge August the re- 4th, and' before ports then there is not sufficient him, available “neglect” poverty of word evidence has respect, meaning unknown to us. In this heretofore that “at the time Mr. hearing, holds Justice Edwards probate judge him no evi- had before neglect, long past, duration "inthe dence of either prediction any of future from reasonable neglect permanent made.” The duration could be upon upon emphasis apparently ele- time, here is “permanent” “long” duration. duration and ments sought difficulty drawn, The the distinction with respect, temporary emphasized as it is with long permanent cannot define how we orders, is many re- long the mother be times must How is. public quired many appeal authorities? How hungry? go How the children times must the mother’s beat- the children witness often must depends opinion, ings? in our criterion, upon of the sur- but all or calendar the clock act or rounding nature of the circumstances, the committed, the conditions under acts, many- all of the provocations thereof, and or lack spectrum up going of life. the make hues colored in the trier or I leave would This determination by jurisdiction is confided to whom of the facts triers (and done here lies all is said But when statute. .my Mr. point with Justice of difference the Ed- probate judge upon the of the decision the wards), if corrected neglect matter to be a remains of issue wrong, jurisdiction. if If he is not of error, but only blunders, it he if indeed, mistake, makes he jurisdiction the of has nothing If he more. that Reports. he not lose it subject of the matter does parties and make for he has mistake, by making Buczkowski, 351 Mich (Buczkowski mistakes. ) 216. need not, we assume, protest We our jealousy natural rights to their But parents children. these are not rights indestructible by themselves. The parents their own acts of may, by cruelty forfeit under degradation, we, rights other circumstances, protect implement by would resource at our every command. The ad- beatings ministered the mother of the children by father be suffered may mother with whatever by philos- and fortitude can ophy she muster. But we are not prepared say that exposure spectacle, addition to the balance shown, matters cannot constitute neglect of the welfare chil- moral dren. persistence reprehensible home to a conditions period only shortly antedating in habeas than corpus is more suggested exhibits A, B, C from the D, instruments dis- trict court for the county Sedgwick, Kansas, which Mr. and Mrs. Fritts were then residing, peti- tioning for divorce and for an order her restraining husband from her. molesting

The question here under examination, whether an (even erroneous conceding it to be such) finding neglect results in a “void” order, on the theory .the court thus lost “jurisdiction” error, because its had recent examination one of the distinguished courts of the nation, for the appeals then Columbia, Justices Ed comprising .District gerton, Stephens, and Rutledge. court, This case of In Stuart, re DC 389 App (114 825), F2d had under consideration an appeal from a judgment (of juvenile-court of the. District of Columbia) that a child “was without'adequate parental care and support and that she should be placed under 131 Krugh. v. n person.” guardianship court, of a certain The. after proceedings reviewing the conclud- evidence, the inadequate findings parental care and ed that transferring the were with- the order ‍‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‍child’s respect out in the warrant evidence. With jurisdiction, issue before that of the court held as us, (pp 834) : 833, follows way “By meaning of further clarification argument appel- act comment an

the lant : It we of the appellant’s is said brief: ‘Jurisdic- * * * juvenile tion of the court under act is dependent upon the evidence this case the parental no evidence shows support such lack care and give juvenile jurisdiction as would appellant make ward the court.’ And throughout insisted argument appellant oral it was juvenile ‘jurisdic- that the court was without appealed tion’ to make the order from. loosely it “While is sometimes said that a court ‘jurisdiction’ supported has no by an make order not necessary prove the evidence of ac- cause complaint tion set forth in the which invokes the important point action of the the sake of juvenile it court, is out, clarity respect power of the proper court, that in the sense of the word jurisdiction jurisdiction, a court has in the sense that only its erroneous action is voidable and not void, parties properly proceed- when the are before it, ing to a kind or class which the court is authorized adjudicate, and the claim set forth in the com- plaint obviously Binderup is not frivolous. v. Pathe Exchange (1923), (44 263 305, US 291, 306 96, S Ct 308); 68 L ed (1922), Howat see v. Kansas (42 550); Cooper 181, US L S Ct ed v. Reynolds (1870), (77 US) (19 10 Wall 308, 316 L ed Brougham 931); Navigation v. Oceanic Steam Co. (CCA 1913), Hughes 205 F Cuming 857, 859; (1900), (58 794). 165 NY proper NE In this jurisdiction sense of the word court in the instant case had to make-the order root. Reports. parties appealed from. The were it, before the ease petition the in was within the described class cases power gives which the act the court with—to- deal involving question adequate parental awit, case a person age petition of a care under the of 18—and the its face a stated cause of action. That the evidence support petition juris- failed to the did not affect the proper term, court, diction of the in the the sense of hear the to as cause to make the it did, order. But pointed we have out above, make the action the subject appeal.” court erroneous and to reversal on eminently

The decision is sound. The loose use “jurisdiction” synonymous the word as with “error” only can serve introduce untold confusion in the law. Buczkowski v. we Buczkowski, supra. Thus, as in

write, we find the record an automobile-acci- dent case now before us the assertion the made to (upon objections jury charges) trial court made to jurisdiction that such court “was without mat- having ter, after denied defendant’s motion (cid:127) * * * charge jury directed verdict the that, as negligence.” guilty a matter of law, Mr.-was having ju- If it meant is that the trial court, parties subject risdiction of the matter, the lost allegedly such charge, because of erroneous complete court,

it is and utter A nonsense. jurisdiction, having by erroneously does not lose it charging, erroneously directing verdict, or as by (allegedly) erroneously entering here an order custody. respecting weighed have not, above,

We the merits respective parents. matched, have not as in We prize ring, distraught natural claims feelings mother, her chil- whose as she abandoned beyond probably understanding, are our full dren against mothers, those of foster embrace, awaiting who, decision, our children as has those grew said, than their hearts rather under been Krtjgh. things not done these al- because, them. We have though tragedies from us, their are not remote our primary children. concern is the welfare anyone’s misunderstanding

Let there be no justification mind about the lack for what ma- jority acting doing. is here are Wé under whip of an statute inexorable which we neither interpret, will nor the wit to for there no stat- commanding ute this result. The common law does Apt Why, precedent not demand it. then ? denies it. Simply solely majority’s of our because stum- bling concepts over one of the most basic known “jurisdiction” law, that of to and decide. hear concept, misapplied, perilous if This so to the sta- bility judicata, judicial process, principles of the of res recently opinion in a unanimous we profession against warned tioned not to its use. cau- loose We reaching

confuse a court’s “correct” jurisdiction with result pointed to hear its and decide. We jurisdiction having out that court of the parties subject jurisdic- and the matter also has Having tion to Bucekowslci, err. said all of this in supra, ago, plunge a few scant we into weeks now pit very posted warning over which we and we drag the Fritts children with us. will of out, climb We course. The will sun not set day ways

on this before will we be forced devise distinguish, repudiate, first bury, then to then to authority. case as No court can live with proposition jurisdiction to hear and decide de- pends justify remedy evidence sufficient to- prayed, question remedy reach we do not of in the matter before -us until we have crossed the bridge jurisdiction. But what, in the meantime, these Are never to know children? surcease cups from sorrow? their Were filled over- flowing years'ago? Are we to add now the hem- lock? Reports. deciding judge

.' that the in error in was circuit matter of the did not have should there- issued circuit it. The writs before without costs. dismissed, be fore J. Voelker, JJ., concurred Smith, with Black and say {dissenting). that, I make bold Black, J. corpus proceedings here of habeas insti review determining purpose of for the tuted first, years,* act should of tender our children self-appointment as a sort of this Court that temporary

guardian rights interests tragically party par or interested diminutive and ap whom—as a rule and as here—no counsel ties for (formerly parents pears. the natural In this case Kansas) Michigan, now of Arkansas, late 6-year-continu- adoptive and the would-be vie with cus immediate as well as final foster ous valley tody be little children. In the shadowed grimly walk contentious forces the inno these tween utterly known and brother defenseless sister cent Sally Doyle Ann and Almo Fritts. in this record position may their to that of Hansel liken well We guardian No forest. counsel and Gretel stood speaks None in the courts below. their side separate us in their hehalf. Send now good courage time, in all and Court, well the wisdom with myopic rights this to today’s of which to confess the error legal majority, attend the thus to welfare grant before the in that, And of the two. right evitably if of case comes to final ultimate Doyle judgment, Sally Fritts are still belated process orderly be issued reach within chapter this ficial Ann sitting in 1944 [1st ^[*] This opinion I shall refer 1957 Cum chapter 12A ease concerns Ex eitation thereof,” Sess], Supp division, § No is 27.3178 was added CL 1948 and CLS 54). By under [598.1] chapter the aet a new the aet of to the et seq.). probate section numbers. The Michigan probate § chapter, 712A.1 et code as amended “to stand seq. (Stat 1939. courts, (PA of- In as Krugh. Berrien court in with county accordance such final judgment.

I with the fully agree Mr. Justice reasoning him in that these join concluding writs Smith corpus habeas should be There is more dismissed. said, be lest storm however, legal as the impending it rages, surely will indefensi- wholly over today’s ble decision of a here, bare foursome these sitting youngsters are spirited beyond our borders be- effective recall of yond (however that order of recant mincing equivocal it we are sure enter may be) when the impact of decision becomes known majority in Michigan probate courts and realized fully is our conference room. and our This people Court will never be able to live the incredible and with blindly posted doctrines do now re- undersigned ject, and the only time when question time; is one of 4 of our perceive Brothers act to correct —their —and grievous folly.

Cardozo that tells us “march at judges times pitiless conclusions under of a prod remorseless which logic is to leave them no alterna- supposed tive that they “deplore the sacrificial rite” and per- form it with averted gaze, they “convinced as plunge knife that they obey their office.” bidding (The Growth Of The Law, p 66.) My Brothers sure- ly march here, thus what do. fully realizing they Would that Constitution required each member of this Court to personally witness heartsicken- scene of ing execution of today’s sentence; majority that tearing fear-stricken little from the ones only homes love and care know remember. might We such recall case these writs on the spot, leaving jury determine right óf should settled Berrien county’s circuit court juryroom. .... from impact today’s Aside sentence on these children, (we what it us appalls who have partial studied the record on which today’s majority Michigan Reports. minority pins remaining record onr has written bring to of the fit, case, has seen since submission county office)1 It here from Berrien clerk’s precise decidedly aberrant determination this and majority: of the concededly may of record

That a subject parties jurisdiction matter have entirely statutory pro brought proper an before it in yet, ceeding (noncriminal day nature*) and before the our is over and for of what to of want supporting proof, majority of is a sufficient record (the jurisdiction proceed judgment judg to lose being error or otherwise ment whether tainted with range quite scope under within statute parties proceed) which court and assumed alleg and, time the same at same force of edly record, sub lose over the deficient ject (in protection matter welfare this case the unrepresented right, are of infants in their own who, jurisdiction to entitled to continued the exercise point judgment by them of of final or attainment age 17). inescapable contagion

Today’s spread its error will county beyond Berrien the confines of outer- Michigan. proceed we most Until boundaries menacing juris- self-correction, a inexorable cloud upon every doubt will have been cast order dictional (bn issued, division hitherto happily supposedly strength con- of which final depend), adoption proceedings may where cluded paucity proof, dissatis- record discloses factory proof, or an absence of “real evi- record long-time supporting neglect,” such order. dence majority proceeds do our face And this declaring ignored that the of the statute an section ings ings.” ^[*] Section under of said chapter shall not be chapter 12A specifically deemed declares criminal that “Proceed- proceed- ¡137 Keugh. question may hearing in informal; he “steno graphic transcript” notes or other be taken need only requested by made when counsel or ordered public may general that “the court, and be exclud (section hearing chapter ed” from such 17 of said A).* yes, way must Ah, 12 we find to unfetter-this corpus proceeding hard-to-get- from habeas already firmly around and juvenile of the seated only way division children. over these way necessity, pursue is shall it we though necessity of the children sentence even knows Thus, no law. proud

“Man, man, -Drest in a little brief ;Most ignorant of what he’s most assured Plays As (Isabella’s makes the such fantastic tricks before denunciation of the angels weep.” authority, sentencing judge high heaven ^{[*] [*] [*]} 117-122.) 2, 'Measure For Measure, act sc lines case, years This will be known in future as Michi- gan’s judicial wosbird of 1958—the occasion when Supreme 4 Michigan members of the Court of sen- strange por- tenced children sinless little to a tentously faraway darkened life in a State without ipretense providing them with thé fundamental (cid:127)rights jury guarantee counsel and trial —we —to pro- meanest of our adult citizens. Withal, my fessed concern of innocents Brothers, for the welfare of the they positively chilling. condemn, now including brought I turn to the record facts, those— my here since of the submission Brothers case— ignore. would Sally Ann Fritts was born at Bock, Little Arkan- Doyle sas, 19,1949. December Almo Fritts born was made. graphic ^[*] In .this No record case, wonder the “record” certainly by permission isn’t letter August perfect. 1952, was taken or statute, no steno- Reports. (in county), Berrien December 17,

at Watervliet majority my July of 1952—this Brothers 1950. In concede—the Berrien in jurisdiction sitting county court, statutory became with division, vested Sally Doyle over on account of the neglect outright tragedy father’s and desertion plea presented repeatedly of mother and the give, from the she could not receive care statutory steps my Brothers followed They no and children—had related. mother —the boy, The little children needed milk. food then suffering years-old, im- from than was less petigo of immediate medical care. need and was juvenile distraught divi- The mother declared to and that care for them sion that-she was unable to adoptive put home “to the children an she wanted where they well for.” the third cared On will probate sought office, she aid occasion, when crying the latter there, mother left the children the their forlorn leaving saying grief, them “Well, I’m undersigned, anyway.” amounted to This, to the yet suggests it waifs, forsaken utter abandonment desperate had little no criticism of mother. She quite father— The and was destitute. alternative petitioner gracious release of our writs here for family corpus deserted whole and habeas —had original gone Knob, to home at Bald his had Arkansas. back statutory proceeded juvenile division So my pro entry hearing of the orders Brothers and jurisdictionally orders were defective. Such nounce August In form 4,1952.* date of entered under filed certain 4th. by counsel, of denial bdt aid appeal of 1952 is {ante, p 117). ^[*] section August'18, Sueh 21 of petition, was papers 1952, . .said denied the. after chapter probate pursue September one to' -whieh parents full 12A) sueh looking hearing filed 27, to set aside the orders appeal toward 1952. petition (obviously my' Brother Edwabds with the further.' The appeal'from parents parents This represеnted abandoned authorized thereupon August . refers order Krugh. juvenile duplicate the division order considered in Snyder, In re Mich which order was reversed appeal against on circuit, confirmed as such appeal question reversal to this with no Court, by anyone including any raised member of this — Court—as division to “permanent” enter such order.

The record of Fritts’ Mrs. since she re troubles, joined replete her husband at Wichita, Kansas, is with more evidence which a trier constituted or (distinguished triers fact from a court jurisdictional questions corpus proceed in a habeas might ing) well conclude that a return of yet January these is not order.* On petition against 1955,Mrs. her Fritts filed for divorce Sedgwick county, Fritts in Mr. Kansas, the district court of alleging parentage Sally Doyle Ann, (born Jimmy Almo ing Dale since the hear 1952); neglect alleging duty cruelty part alleging Fritts, on the Mr. her hus enjoined band “should be restrained and lesting from mo annoying plaintiff any time.” or at thereupon restraining issued district Mr. Fritts from its order

molesting annoying Fritts, Mrs. prayed, pay in her bill and ordered him a bi weekly “temporary support ali amount child mony” plus attorney 24, 1955, fees. On Mrs. June petition, alleging filed an amended birth of a (Ronald Leslie) alleging child and further fourth follows: as plaintiff petition January filed a 14,1955, “That on against that after divorce defend- defendant; plaintiff promised that he would discontinue ant cruelty extreme mental which constituted acts his yet by children. ^[*] has been The point these no trial of the made parents here, ask and restoration merits of the I shall come to it to them of pending later, statutory is of these there as petition Reports. relying upon neglect duty, plaintiff, gross of and again promises, took him hack and lived

these together and wife.” as man petition In her amended Mrs. Fritts went on to allege: plaintiff, taking “That her back since husband has duty devolving

performed every each her disregarding the defendant but his he, as the wife of marriage promises, guilty vows and been duties, has gross neglect duty cruelty of and extreme mental plaintiff.” toward the record of This continued marital save discord, only obviously testified later in as relation what shaky (see opin- parents reconciliation was this), only Edwards on in- ion of Mr.-Justice appellate init, formation year has before this this Court strength ap- of which asked to we are corpus custody by prove transfer of child habeas — pending appeal thwarting direct and excellent —from jurisdiction process. our within and foster homes beyond our Con- home reach of a troubled enlightened proper ‍‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‍forum for that the vinced rightful legally determination such critical issue open yet that it utilized stands not as been has county parties (in cir- the Berrien all interested part any court), abuse I will have no such cuit writ. of our constitutional misuse validity jurisdictional question First: August 1952. court orders question at has considered Mr. Justice Smith Fully agreeing length. I am moved views, with his “sup- long jurisdiction to enter this: to add plemental So (and disposition” continues such order juvenile intact division remains Doyle Sally day, Fritts, concerns far as so to this August 4th), .validity regardless of the orders may proper- no order—entered division— Krugh. 141 rights” (the parental “severing all ly as termed be expression that Mr. quoted is of Justice Edwards).* legally plain, un even to the was made think This I skilled, jurisdiction

by grant continuing to is of any supplemental time while said “at orders sue court,” of said child under is grant in dovetailed seriation find the reader will chapter by and 24 of said 20, 21 19, sections shown my very in ma Brothers Indeed, the section 12A. necessary jority rely we echoes this —when continuity of manifest need the rather consider jurisdiction legislative of in such cases—declaration (section 20) “If concludes: That section intent. permanent custody placed of child is though rights parental terminated such all are court, by supplemental rights may order reinstated of any finality of no Perforce, there is disposition” by itself, command of self- when order order subject incorporating statute, made .retained power modify, continuing “affirm, of the court any all such orders. Witness or set aside” n complementing cooperative provisions of sec a child The fate of tions 20 and the statute. of at life not—or least not be—a in our courts is should youngster’s apple single death at the shot driving say, opportunity home head the one like, referring statute, lien. The to said a mechanic’s says chapter soupcon just even a 12A, that. So does common sense. Court, an determination of this Even unanimous invalidity August jurisdictional the 2 orders support misguided in no manner these 4th, would to the Mrs. course be § 27.3178 ^[*] adoption Sally by pending proceedings Such an order — Krugh. entered [549]), Mr. proceedings. code and Mrs. Graham and with, as last amended finally (CLS the effect (in ISTo 1956, Berrien “severing such provided § 710.9, order has as probate) all adoption PA Stat Ann 1957 Cum parental looking seetion yet ISTo Doyle by rights” may toward been 9 of chapter pertaining entered — adoption Mr. and Supp Reports. corpus. writs of habeas ad- division mittedly possessed jurisdiction Sally was of over Doyle hearing August and when the 4th com- day any If menced. its orders of that were void for vigorously dispute and reason— ed, I this conced- —the Sally Doyle over and Fritts remained appropriate subject steadfast and became an of a proceeding new under statute or continuation rightfully the one commenced. Is this not clear? parents recognized proceeded Well, these on strength just of the conclusion voiced when (August 1955) statutory petition filed their appealed restoration of to circuit from denial thereof. brings

This us to the discovered record fact of filing probate petition August of said 18th: probate; appeal (by denial thereof in due to circuit parents) from denial motion thereof; in circuit (by Krugh Graham) Mr. and Mrs. and Mr. and Mrs. appeal ground to dismiss that adjudication the orders of August 4, 1952, constituted an in bar petition and determination of the of Au gust 18th; due submission of said motion to dismiss appeal; filing judge’s opinion of the circuit in he held that the motion denied, to dismiss should he entry of order in circuit “That the aforesaid petition (of August 18th) be tried on its merits judge’s opinion denying de novo* The circuit such motion I enlightening is both and sound. to.dismiss fully (quot concur with his He ruled conclusion. ing unchallenged from opinion his unvacated and 1956): filed March

Berrien Berrien circuit court No B-1400. record first ^[*] Sally These record facts are taken from the county Ann Britts and certified circuit court file entitled “In the Matter of the Estate here, Doyie our clerk’s office. Almo It Britts, now reposes, original Jr.” , along with the bears Such file separate Krugs:. n prohate question or not the court of whether “The any jurisdiction, or whether its orders as had judicata question, actually of that res entered were any and effect of such contents issue as or applied immaterial as situa- orders, becomes filing existing at at the time of the least now, tion petition court which is denied of the appeal. of this basis question appears petition raise the “The in fact and in law. It of these children status current de on its merits novo so be heard should may children, determine status petition required, on the as filed de- then if termine based custody thereby the issue raised. appeal . “The motion to dismiss is denied with petitioners may prepare an order for costs, and out signature accordingly.”* something is more than circuit, to All in all it remarkable appeal pending from of a in denial find an supplemental disposi- statutory petition order of for by abeyance judicial one hand the held in tion, corpus proceeds in to the same court other habeas deny question of the court from and appeal been taken. And is the has such which such just unseemly cer- the same court has when more jurisdictional question, against the asserted tified, as made known. to habeas present would statutory bad been substituted with such in file of due process reporter and short. an ^[*] provide misguided inadequate It and misleading enough have eliminated is foregoing corpus I am interested litigant during that suggested that we have no petition error due process process resort to innocently — his customary record; after perforce parties, opinions for a settle for settlement error-causing thereto for from this presently more to a denial decide a of Justices decisive record which, those who through all, issue of sight may in check — children and contenders record due process of the same issue. pending record ease the amount, a right this Edwards against small but but due process. facts Court to consider brought appeal wrong infinitely knothole — for the so far for has indeed and such are and these children way from curtailed brought Smith, here crucial as concerns vigilance worse Yes, this additional my To this view alike. denial of a a account answer I fact doubtless here and curtailed record— propose persist It than that fact our is is Michigan Reports. appeal proceed pending

that the should trial for purpose statutory determining and real parties, including all issue involved are children, entitled have settled. That issue is whethеr now (not 1956) proofs Fritts, Mr. and Mrs. on 1958 to be petition (for taken, are- entitled said restoration custody) “supplemental disposition” to a order of their favor. corpus interposed, Second: Should habeas appeal pending for, substituted from court? rarity any per-

The case be a must where court has parties corpus mitted to utilize habeas aas means impede supersede, regular aside, move thus or pending litigation pre- in -whichthe same issue— petition corpus sented settlement or for habeas due—is adjudication.

overriding rule, Our authority, consonant with unanimous is habeas corpus appeal cannot be substituted for or error. apply apply the rule—must it—in at We least score year petitions corpus of cases each when for habeas brought appealed appeal- are before us to review or jail prison surely, able sentences. Most and in every singular involving case save one these county apply Berrien shall children, we continue to appeal it it when is vant shown an at rele- aimed point adjudication wailing pending trial. duplicating In the recent and case of Harmsen v. sup Fizzell, ported by 86, 351 Mich Mr. Justice Edwards, this writer and other of the members general Court, found occasion to consider the rule having I which refer. After treated “technical problems” legal brought here in Harmsen to test jurisdiction of the same division, our say: Brother went on to Krtjgh. 145- v. said, to he this case however, needs,

“More where the a criminal proceeding involve does from at to freedom restraint is of a person right the writ here is the use of sought is issue. What of. to or to statutory appeal as a substitute corpus habeas orders of the long review past de novo on the ad- purportedly issues

gain therein.” judicated

I remark that Harmsen in rise to wаs proceeding corpus, present habeás wherein our members by headed Justice Edwards wrote to sustain Court Berrien county probate (juvenile division) jurisdic- against tion —as circuit— corpus habeas Berrien on this sound premise 109): “Children are not (p chattels to title legal may be deter- properly mined á technical by writ.” Yet here our Brother to yield juvenile writes division jurisdiction over— as well title jurisdictional as to—these children, to do by so issuance of “technical writs.” And this he does after just superior extolled the vir- having tues and of the advantages juvenile division, with its “special jurisdiction, special powers of disposition, specialized staffing problems as children’s dependency delinquency cases.”' (Sovereign Sovereign, 354 Mich 65, 95, handed down this day). Quid est? Or is there something “special” about the Berrien juvenile division which requires that its Ruth advantages applied David Harmsen but not to the needful equally Sally Doyle Fritts?

Third: The immediate these children. welfare of Aside from the above we come the always-con- trolling question present welfare these children. If, this Court rightfully declares with reiterant monotony eases, child our prime goal greatest we can do then good child, Sally and Doyle Fritts should remain in these foster homes pending orderly trial, preferably stat- jury, Beports. Michigan submitted voluntarily have parents their

utory issue to the circuit and brought division upon parlous need not dwell by We appeal. judging life which these and uncertain into infants — thrust record —will be not-up-to-date from this these writs to Kansas. We should be sent they environment the praiseworthy need describe years ago— Sally’s just life since she was enabled — of Mr. and to enter and become of the home part we details of Mrs. Neither must write Graham. quite undisputed disclosing and facts corresponding and remembers Doyle mercifully little knows the home and Mr. Mrs. only Krugh care on him old. Prob- bestowed since he was 20 months history in all no better record ably, Court, ones, by and continuous of little proper, loving care their been laid parents desiring adoption, foster has before the ultimate us. Without to decide assuming triable the natural issue-—-whether properly are entitled to restoration supplemental order, or new course present —our these The children accurately facts charted. they should where are until the mentioned stay issue is tried to verdict and judgment. special

There is a separate reason the de- termination I espouse. These children are now—and for 6 years— subject have been jurisdiction the Berrien county court, juvenile division. away, by Should sent these to a writs distant effective State, will have been lost cast Kansas. And in Kansas there be no may Krughs or Grahams available to take over when and if the next —from past experi- ence—abandonment of Sally Doyle takes place. do, as I

Becognizing, judicial authority send beyond infants our borders and re- beyond judicial (Lewis Lewis, call v. 338 Mich we 200), should in this .case announce the important qualification Krugh. plainly fit to in their wisdom have seen other courts Pugh in annotated case of record. As was said Pugh, (56 905, 15 501, 901, 133 509 SE2d W Va v. ALR2d 430):

424, custody of an infant to a of resi- the award “When the removal of infant State, of another dent to jurisdiction, will not or is detri- serve, another of child, the welfare award or to, mental such permitted (citing removal will not he numerous such authorities). power of the circuit court to The custody petitioner, award the the child who permit not State, is a resident of this and to her to jurisdiction from remove the child its and to the. beyond question. California, is clear It State should power, not that exercise however, unless the custody person awаrd of to a who is not resident permission this and the State to take the child out promote of this State the welfare of the child.” subject thoroughly The will be found in briefed starting page the above-cited annotation, 432, un heading affecting der the “Nonresidence as one’s right custody of child.” The entire annotation (15 432) may boresight ALR2d be summarized as a edly power duty accurate declaration to re lease a child from the that of another —to only when it State—when is found that the wel promoted by fare of the will child best be an order finding, for such release. Here there is no such be majority opinion, or in low our and none could be complete fashioned from this record without resort transparent distortion.* In these circumstances (and entirely apart pre- from other considerations * 19, (the petition Under date October for order of restora- having recently tion been filed), county juvenile the Berrien officer report concludes, filed his detailed with recommendation. It I right believe it to be the reach, fact-conclusion we should as follows: perversion “It justice would be a away to tear these children present from their there is continual plaee homes and in them back a home where insecurity.” strife and Reports. I resolve the would doubt— opinion)

sented my there none mind-—in favor reten- present is tion, county’s statutory jurisdic- Berrien As through dismissal these writs. tion, by Perry, in Butler v. Md (123 was said 458) : A2d, 453, for an instant that if the best suggest do “We child required of a it * the child should

interests not * * out say be sent State. We merely case, such as case before one us, close is that may consideration the court much exercise more effective control when kept State.” supreme of Minnesota had recent occa

sion to consider the of a application made mother, under circumstances much those like shown for here, сustody of her son and for him young leave to take from Minnesota her of place residence in Ohio (State, Jaroszewski, ex rel. Prestidge, v. 249 Minn 705]). NW2d The court’s [81 to denial reasoning of that application is, view, in my decisively good for the case at bar. The court said (p 90):

“It difficult for a decide that always natural mother her deprived be custody shall However,

child. under facts and circum- we that here, stances feel it will be for best interests of child at tender him age his take away from the home and environment, church and connection, school which he known and up has now, him place custody respondent. “The record shows that has he been and raised appellants cared old; and that he by since was a few months still desire to him have live with ; them boy seems happy contented with his present home and environment. We believe that a upset Serious emotional could result if a transfer made custody were at this time. One of the consid- in erations our decisionis the fact that there has been Keugh. Feitts satisfactory showing proper no of a stable home or given respondent, if environment were to any convincing showing nor has there been that her type changed sufficiently of work life so placed custody.” child should in now her

Summary approval This case—one review and of issuance divesting juvenile of “technical writs” division jurisdiction right over children whose to exer- jurisdiction unquestioned by cise of such stands word goes, reports crying or into our vain reason— quadriad majority, ques- answer, our of 2 stark juvenile possessed tions: Was the division of no jurisdiction, chapter under said 12A, to hear and yet ready-to-be-tried pending determine the stat- utory petition by the natural for restoration custody? reasoning and what When act has acquired jurisdiction the over division lost its

Sally Doylе Fritts; eoneededlywas vested in with such when division gavel opening August the 4,1952? announced of court on sprouts From such want answer our incredible case; mistake when no that of release of these writs any pro- one here more than do knows— today’s judges bate and fact-, circuit below—what picture (distinguished Kansas from that more ago) may years than 2 is or be. Writs habeas corpus hope Let issue, either do not. us errantly signed writs are these the arrested —short of' it too line—before late. State for I vote reverse with remand dismissal of proceed the writs and with instruction to toward prompt pending appeal trial from Further, I recommend the circuit court. would given to court that consideration be its discretion to appeal jury such order that be transferred Michigan Reports. 150' Rule section 3 Court No (See [19453' calendar 2 of comment under Rule author’s section Court and for the [1945])* ap and to order provide 74No trial counsel guardian vigorous pointment of.a interest, Sally the real in parties Doyle for Fritts. Black, with JJ., concurred J. Voelker,

Smith in part took no the decision of this J., Kavanagh, case.

* Annotated, p Honigman, Michigan Court Rules 704. v. SOVEREIGN.

SOVEREIGN Judicata. 1. Judsment —Res judicata subject matter the same involves of res defense The in order to be successful. parties and the same Judicata. 2. Divorce —Res judicata was not in second suit divorce of res defense plaintiff complaint in her bill of wife sworn ‍‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‍available, where the prior ease. final decision subsequent to upon acts relied op Wipe Wipe Support and Minor Children. — 3. Husband obligation minor chil- support his wife and married man’s A rela- of the marital him until dissolution remains with dren tionship. [2, ^[7] n ^{[1] [3] [6]} Decree Distinction between estoppel for divorce 30A 26 Child 35. 30A Am 17 Am Am Am Am § Jur, Jur, suit Jur, Judgments Jur, Judgments Jur, References Pleading Husband and or annulment. particular Divoree and separation as judgments § 333. por fact. §§ § Separation 328. Wife Points 138 ALR 346. 88 ALR 574. as bar to cause of action res 397. § 340; 39 Am in Headnotes judicata § 547. (cid:127) Jur, subsequent Parent and suit as

Case Details

Case Name: Fritts v. Krugh

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Oct 13, 1958

Citation: 92 N.W.2d 604

Docket Number: Docket 53, Calendar 46,998

Court Abbreviation: Mich.