The Court of Appeal on Tuesday dismissed Dr. Barnardo's appeal
against an order of a Divisional Court for attachment against him, for not making a due return to a writ of habeas corpus for the restoration of a child formerly placed in his custody by its mother. The facts of the case were simple enough. The girl, the subject of the action, was handed over by her mother to Dr. Barnardo on the understanding that he should do the best he could for her, and eventually place her in a situation, either here or in the Colonies. Last December, however, the mother revoked the authority given to Dr. Barnardo, and asked for her child back. He believing, though, as it turns out, entirely without foundation, that if the girl were restored she would be cruelly treated and subjected to evil and contaminating influences, refused to accede to the demand thus made upon him, and entrusted the child to a lady who took her out of the jurisdiction of the Court, first to Cannes and then to Belgium. Upon this, the mother, in order to enforce the restitution of the child, sued out a writ of habeas corpus. Dr. Barnardo replied that he could not produce her, as she was no longer in his custody. The Master of the Rolls and Lords Justices Cotton and Lindley have now decided that this answer is insufficient, and that though Dr. Barnardo parted with the child before the writ issued, he parted with her wrongfully, since the mother's authority under which he held the girl had previously been distinctly revoked. After such revocation, to hand her over to any one but her mother was an illegal act, and Dr. Barnardo must take the consequences. The decision is clearly right in law and morals.
Previous page
