Watkins v. Terrell (alias Hayes), No. 14642 (Oct. 5, 1943)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a habeas-corpus contest for the custody of a four-year-old girl. The petition was brought by the father against the parents of the deceased mother (the maternal grandparents), and involved the father's alleged "gift" of the child to those grandparents and the comparative fitness of the parties to have custody. The habeas-corpus hearing was before Judge Martin in Jefferson city court on June 5, 1943. The matter was considered by the Supreme Court of Georgia, with the opinion delivered October 5, 1943. Counsel of record in the lower proceedings were G. W. Westmoreland for the plaintiff and E. C. Stark for the defendant.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petitioning father made an effective "gift" or absolute relinquishment of his right of custody of the child to the maternal grandparents.
If such a relinquishment occurred, whether the grandparents, having accepted the gift, were suitable and proper persons legally entitled to custody.
Whether the trial judge's discretion under Code § 50-121 in awarding custody should be controlled or disturbed where the evidence on controlling issues is conflicting.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bond v. Norwood, 195 Ga. 383, 24 S.E.2d 289	Establishes that when a father relinquishes custody and control of his minor child to another, that person—if suitable—is legally entitled to custody; and that the discretion vested in the judge by Code § 50-121 is not free or arbitrary but governed by legal rules and should be exercised in favor of the party having the legal right unless that right has been lost by law; also that where evidence on controlling issues is in conflict, the judge's discretion will not be controlled.	The court applied these principles to conclude that the case was controlled by Bond v. Norwood and that the trial judge's discretionary award of custody to the respondents should not be disturbed.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first held that the legal questions presented were controlled by Bond v. Norwood. It stated the governing rule that if a father relinquishes custody and control of his minor child to another person, that person—provided they are suitable and proper—is legally entitled to custody, and that the judge's discretion under Code § 50-121 is constrained by legal rules rather than being free or arbitrary. The court then identified the controlling issue at the hearing as whether the father had made a "gift" of the child to the maternal grandparents. Finding abundant evidence in the record that the father had made an absolute relinquishment of his right of custody, that the grandparents had accepted such a gift, and that they were suitable and proper persons to have custody, the court concluded that, despite contrary evidence offered by the petitioner, the trial judge's exercise of discretion in awarding the child to the respondents was proper and would not be disturbed.

Holding and Implications

Judgment affirmed.

Direct effect: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's award of custody to the maternal grandparents (the respondents). The opinion applies existing precedent (Bond v. Norwood) and does not purport to announce a new legal rule beyond that application.

Show full summary ...

WATKINS v. TERRELL, alias HAYES, et al.

JENKINS, Presiding Justice.

1. In this contest for the custody of a girl of four years, on a habeas-corpus petition by the father against the parents of the deceased mother, and involving an alleged "gift" by the father to such grandparents and the comparative fitness of the parties to have the custody, the legal questions are controlled by the recent rulings in Bond v. Norwood, 195 Ga. 383 ( 24 S.E.2d 289), and cit. Where a father relinquishes the custody and control of his minor child to another, the latter, if a suitable and proper person to have such custody and control, is legally entitled thereto; and the discretion vested in the judge by the Code, § 50-121, is not free or arbitrary, but is to be governed by the rules of law, and should be exercised in favor of the party having the legal right, unless the evidence shows that such party has lost his right in some way recognized by law. Where the evidence on the controlling issues is in conflict, the discretion of the judge will not be controlled.

2. The controlling issue at the hearing being whether the petitioning father had made a "gift" of the child to the respondent grandparents, and there being abundant evidence that the father had made to the grandparents an absolute relinquishment of his right of custody, that they had accepted such "gift," and that they were suitable and proper persons, notwithstanding evidence for the petitioner to the contrary on all of these questions, the discretion of the judge in awarding the child to the respondents will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

No. 14642. OCTOBER 5, 1943.

WATKINS v. TERRELL