This is аnother of the many regrettable controversies that come before us involving custodj^ of a child. Fortunately there is little doubt, as the trial court found, this child has received excellent care, since she was nine months old, *197 in the home of her axint and uncle and her best interests and welfare will be promoted by permitting her to remain there.
June Alexander and Charles Ruffeorn were married in 1943. She was 15, he was 18. Teresa, youngest of their four children, was born in the spring of 1948. Ruffeorn was killed in an automobile accident in August of that year. Care of the four young children was tоo much for June and she did not have a suitable home for them. Mrs. Donna 'Withem, Ruffeorn’s sister, helped care for Teresa “off and on” until she was nine months old. Then, in January or February 1949, Donna and her husband, with June’s consent, took Teresa to their home where she has since lived continuously.
Between the time Ruffeorn died and trial hereof in March 1954, June was married and divorced twice and married a third time (fourth in all) in June 1953 to her present husband, Carl Andersen. During the five years following Ruffeorn’s death, the three older children lived with June’s parents except for three or four months when Junе and her third husband enrolled them in a school in Omaha.
June and her present husband reside in a three-room apartment in Omaha. Before school opened in September 1953 they took the three older children there to live with them. June has stayed in Omaha much of the time since Ruffеorn died. February 3, 1954, June made a demand on the Withems for Teresa but they refused to surrender her. The Withems then evidently consulted the county attorney of Harrison County regarding their right to the child’s custody.
The county attorney (who had been June’s attorney in her two divorce suits) prepared аnd filed on February 26 what he designated “Complaint” sworn to by him, alleging Teresa is “an abandoned child as defined by Code chapter 232.2” and asking that the necessary steps be taken to investigate the charge to the end that such orders be made as the court may deem advisablе.
Incidentally the “complaint” should have been designated “petition” (Code section 232.5) and should have alleged the child was “dependent” or “neglected” as defined by section 232.2, rather than “abandoned.” An abandoned child is not defined in 232.2 or elsewhere in chapter 232. The only definition in
*198
232.2 is of a dependent or neglected child. June, appellant here, has not mentioned any of the above inaccuracies in the petition and apparently was not misled thereby. It is not suggested the trial court’s finding Teresa was a neglected child within the meaning оf section 232.2 is outside the issue raised by the petition. We regard these matters as unimport-ant. See in this connection Code section 232.39; rule 106, Rules of Civil Procedure; In re East Minors,
Pursuant to section 232.7 the petition was set down for hearing and notice ordered served upon June and Mrs. Withem. The presumption is the required notice was served. In re East Minors, supra,
As required by section 232.13 the court tried the cause in equity. Some two and one-half months later, apparently after careful consideration, the district court found, as above indicated, Teresa was a neglected child within the meaning of section 232.2 and her best interests and welfare can be promoted only by permitting her to remain in the custody of the Withems. From judgment and decree pursuant to these findings June has appealed to us.
I. Our review is de novo. Savery v. Eddy,
II. We first consider whether Teresa was a dependent or neglected child within the meaning of Code chapter 232. Under *199 section 232.2 a “dependent” or “neglected child” means “any child who, * * #: 1. Is destitute, homeless or abandoned. 2. Is dependent upon the public for support. 3. Is Avithout proper parental care or guardianship, * * We are required to construe chapter 232 liberally “to the end that its purpose may be carried out.” Section 232.39.
Clеarly Teresa was without proper parental care or guard? ianship when the Withems took her. It is without dispute “Her crib had not been cleaned out for several days, she was soaking wet, had rash on her from one end to the other and there was clabbered milk in the bottle.” On at least one occasion the baby was playing in her own filth. June and her four children were living in two-rooms, without bathtub, hot water or indoor toilet. Her oil burner blew up and the water pipes froze in midwinter. June was on relief and unable to repair the stove or pipes. As previously stаted, care of the four children was too much for her.
Under these circumstances, with June’s consent, the With-ems charitably took Teresa to their home where she has now lived about six years and eight months. During all this time June has contributed only about $200 to the child’s support. Most of this camе from social security payments June received before August 1952. During one period of six months the Withems did not know where June was living. So far as shown June made no demand for the return of Teresa until shortly before this action was commenced. By then the Withems had become strongly attachеd to the child and she to them. June must have known of these growing bonds of affection.
It has been suggested Teresa was not a dependent or neglected child at the time of trial because of the excellent care she has received from her aunt and uncle. But this carе has not been parental care. Under a statute substantially identical to ours it has been held a child does not have “ ‘proper parental care or guardianship’ ” who does “not have proper care by his natural parents.” In re Davis,
A case very similar to this on the facts
and the procedure followed,
is In re Reed,
“Protestant takes the position that since third parties, or ‘оther persons’, were properly caring for the child, it could not be said to be neglected under the provision relating to proper parental care. But this cannot be a proper view where, as here, the child is placed with others aud the obligation to pay for its upkeep is abandoned by the parent.”
In re Reed is followed in In re Davis, supra,
In In re Olson,
Iti Ex parte Day,
43 C. J. S., Infants, section 98a, page 229, states: “ 'Dependent child’ has been said to be the term applied to normal children who must be supported by others than their natural guardians; a dependent child is a child whо is dependent on another, or on the public, for support.”
The decisions above-cited and others make it clear courts generally give a liberal interpretation to the statutory definition of dependent or neglected children. (See 43 C. J. S., Infants, section 98a, page 230.) Especially is this true wdiere the child’s best interests call for such interpretation.. The court’s paramount duty when a question of child custody is involved is to act for the best interests of the child. State v. Stemmler,
Illustrative of the liberal interpretation to which we have just referred are the decisions that hold a child is dependent or neglected within statutory definitions where its parents refuse, on religious grounds, to permit a blood transfusion or other medical treatment which appears probably necessary to save the child’s life. See People еx rel. Wallace v. Labrenz,
Mitchell v. Davis, supra, at page 814 of 205 S.W.2d, page 1045 of 12 A. L. R.2d, approves this statement: “* * * pleadings are of little importance in a child custody hearing and that the trial court’s efforts to exercise br.oad, equitable powers in determining w7hat wdll be best for the future welfare of the children should be unhampered by narrow technical rules.”
*202
We conclude, under a liberal construction of section 232.2, Teresa was a dependent or neglected child in that she was without proper parental care or guardianship. The trial court reached the conclusion she was a dependent or neglected child upon somewhat different reasoning. We need not dеtermine the soundness of such reasoning. As stated, the cause is triable de novo here. And even if the reasons by which the trial court reached a correct decision were erroneous it would not entitle appellant to a reversal. Erroneous reasons for a right decision are deemed not prejudicial. In re Estate of Hale,
Nothing herein is contrary to In re Dependency of Stamp, supra,
III. Section 232.21(2) provides the court may commit any neglected, dependent or delinquent child “to some suitable family home or allow it to remain in its own home.” As we observed at the outset, there is little doubt Teresa’s best interests and welfare will be promotеd by permitting her to remain in the home of her aunt and uncle. In reality that is her own home. Certainly it is a “suitable family home.” We agree with the trial court she should remain there.
Appellant concedes what we have held many times that the controlling consideration in all cases invоlving child custody is the welfare and best interests of the child. Also that a parent’s right of custody is only presumptive, not conclusive. It may be relinquished by abandonment, contract or otherwise and will not be enforced where the best interests and welfare of the child call for other care and custody. See Finken v. Porter, supra,
Appellant also concedes Teresa has been well provided for *203 by her aunt and she has love and affection for the child. Nothing derogatory to the Withems or their home appears. The mother’s claim to custody is largely based on her presumptive right as a surviving parent. The correct approach is from the standpoint of what is best for the child.
One matter entitled to consideration is that June and her present husband are nonresidents of Iowa and propose to take Terеsa out of the state. At least twice we have approved the statement it is against the policy of the law to permit the removal of a child from the jurisdiction unless its welfare would be better subserved thereby. Jensen v. Jensen,
Another consideration of importance, already mentioned, is the strong attachment that has developed between the Withems and the child. June’s long inability to care for her properly and lack of effort for about five years to obtain the child’s custody naturally contributed to the strengthening of ties between her and the aunt and uncle. It would not be for Teresa’s welfare to transplant her now. To do so would be a change from conditions proven to be beneficial to her. It would be in the nature of an experiment which should not now be mаde. See in this connection Blundi v. Blundi, supra,
Perhaps we should add that both sides have fully argued the question whether the award of custody to the Withems is for the child’s best interests and the second of the two grounds for reversal is the claimed error in the trial court’s affirmative finding on this point. — Affirmed.