Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

181 Ark. 284

25 S.W.2d 436

Johnston v. Lowery

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 10, 1930

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1930-03-10

Relies on Verser v. Ford · Loewe v. Shook · Coulter v. Sypert

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1930-03-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 1965

7 state decisions

301930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Kirby, J.,

¶1(after stating the facts). Appellant insists that he is entitled to the custody of his child as against the child’s aunt under the circumstances of this case, and that the order of the judge holding otherwise should be quashed. The general rule is well understood and well established that the father is the natural guardian of his child and entitled to its custody. Mantooth v. Hophins, 106 Ark. 197, 153 S. W. 95. The law recognizes the preferential rights of parents to their children over relatives and strangers, and where no,t detrimental to the welfare of the children, they are paramount, and will be respected, unless special circumstances demand that such rights be ignored. Herbert v. Herbert, 176 Ark. 858, 4 S. W. (2d) 513; Loewe v. Shook, 171 Ark. 474, 284 S. W. 726.

¶2The courts will not always, however, award the custody of an infant to the father, but, in the exercise of a sound discretion, will look into the peculiar circumstances of the case, and act as the welfare of the 'child appears to require considering primarily, three things: “(1) Respect fior parental affection, (2) Interest of humanity generally, (3) The infant’s own best interest.” Mantooth v. Hopkins, supra; Verser v. Ford, 37 Ark. 29; Coulter v. Sypert, 78 Ark. 193, 95 S. W. 457. The majority of the court is of opinion, in which the writer does not concur, that there was only an exercise of sound discretion by the judge, and not an abuse of it, in awarding the custody of the infant child, under the circumstances of this case, to the aunt, to whom she was much attached, with whom she had long lived, and with whom she expressed a decided preference to remain.

¶3Appellant pursued the correct practice by bringing the action or decision of the judge upon the habeas corpus proceeding to this court by certiorari for a review, revision or correction. Ex parte Good, 19 Ark. 410; State v. Williams, 97 Ark. 243, 133 S. W. 1017; Ex parte Dame 162 Ark. 382, 269 S. W. 754.

¶4Having found the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought, the petition will be dismissed. It is so ordered.

/181/ark/284 · .json · Public domain