Catherine Grimes, A Minor

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 11 September 1877
• Date: 11 September 1877
• Court: Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

IN THE MATTER OF CATHERINE GRIMES, A MINOR.

Andrews v. SaltELR L. R. 8 Ch. App. 637.

In re Cecilia Browne, a minor 8 Ir. Ch. R. 173.

Stourton v. Stourton 8 D. M. & G. 760.

In re Meades, minors I. R. 5 Eq. 98.

Hawksworth v. HawksworthELR L. R. 6 Ch. App. 639.

In re O'Malleys, minors 8 Ir. Ch. R. 306.

Blisset's Case Lofft's Rep. 748.

Shelley v. WestbrookeENR Jacob, 266.

In re Moore, an infantUNK 11 Ir. C. L. R. 418.

Talbot v. Shrewsbury 4M. & Cr. 686.

Re Browne, a minor 2 Ir. Ch. R. 151.

Shelley v. WestbrookeENR Jacob, 266.

Wellesley v. BeaufortENRENR 2 Russ. 1; 2 Bligh, N. S. 124.

Lyons v. BlenkinENR Jacob, 255, 262.

In re FynnENR 2 De G. & Sm. 457.

Re O'Reillys, minors 8 Ir. Ch. R. 306.

Hawksworth v. HawksworthELR L. R. 6 Ch. App. 539.

Andrews v. SaltELR L. R. 8 Ch. App. 637.

In re AndrewsELR L. R. 8 Q. B. 153.

In re Meades, minors Ir. R. 5 Eq. 98 111.

Stourton v. Stourton 8 D. M. & G. 760.

The Queen v. Howes 3 Ell. & Ell. 332.

In re NewberryELR L. R. 1 Eq. 431; 1 Ch. App. 263.

In re Curtis 28 L. J. (Ch.) 458.

Davis v. Davis 10 W. R. 245.

The Queen v. Clarke (Alicia Race's Case)ENR 7 E. & B. 186.

Witty v. Marshall 1 Yo. & Coll. (Ch.) 68.

Infant — Religious education — Parental authority — Jurisdiction.

Tot. XL] EQUITY bERIES. 465 I do not think that I should give any costs against these V. a Court. parties. They were probably misled by supposing that they were 18Th -at liberty to make use of any form of affidavit, and. perhaps there LEDWIDGE was no obligation on them to adopt the form which for the future MAYNE. I desire to be used ; and I do not think that there was any intenÂÂtional concealment. Solicitor for the Plaintiff : Mr. J. J. Adams. Solicitor for the Defendants Mayne and Rochford : Mr. P. J. Mayne. Solicitor for the Defendent Lynch : Mr. B. Lynch. IN THE MATTER OF CATHERINE GRIMES, A MINOR.. Infant-Religious education-Parental authority-Jurisdiction. Ohancery. 1877. August 8, 10. The Court of Chancery has jurisdiction to protect the conscientious convic- Sept. 11. Lions of a minor, although adverse to the religion or even to the declared wishes of a living father who has not forfeited his parental authority by any misconÂÂduct ; but such jurisdiction is only to be exercised with extreme caution. If the case for interference under such circumstances be rested solely on the ground of the child's religious convictions, it must be established with reasonable cerÂÂtainty that they have some root, and are entertained by a mind of intelligence adequate to understand their importance, and with stability capable of adhering to them ; and, in order to inform itself on those points, the Court may, by a personal interview, test the opinions and wishes of the child. In re Meades, minors (I. R. 5 Eq. 98) followed. PETITION filed on behalf of Catherine Grimes, a minor, by the -Very Rev. Patrick Mlianus, Roman Catholic Dean of Clifden, praying that she might be made a ward of Court ; that he might be appointed guardian of her person and fortune ; that her father, -Charles Grimes, might be restrained from in any way interfering with her religion or religious education, or from placing her in the custody of the authorities of the Glenowen Orphanage, or any -other Orphanage of the Irish Church Missions ; and. from interÂÂfering with the custody of his daughter pending the appointment of a guardian. The petition also prayed that the usual inquiries. and directions might be ordered and given. 2112 2 466 THE IRISH REPORTS. [L Chancery. Numerous affidavits were filed on behalf of the Petitioner, and 1877. also on behalf of Charles Grimes, who was of a humble rank of In re life ; the evidence as to the child's religious convictions, &c., was,. GRIMES. very conflicting, but the general view taken of it by the Court, and the main facts of the case, sufficiently appear from the judgment. Mr. Heron, Q. C. (with him Mr. Butt, Q. C., and Mr. F. Nolan),, for the Petitioner : A father may by his acts waive his right to have his children brought up in his own religion after his death : Simpson on Infants, 124, citing Andrews v. Salt (1) : and the Court will then have them brought up in the mother's religion, if under the cirÂÂcumstances that seems more beneficial to them. The Court should have a personal interview with the infant here, to ascertain if her convictions are settled, and will not disturb them if found to be so. In re Cecilia Browne, a minor (2) ; Stourton v. Stourton (3). The same course may be adopted in the father's lifetime : In re Modes, minors (4). In Hawksworth v. Ilawks2corth (5) the Vice-Chancellor hal. had an interview with the child. The fact that the-father himself has neither the means nor the inclination to keep, his child will influence the decision of the Court : In re 0'11-alleys, minors (6). From the earliest times the father's authority over his child has been held to be subordinate to that of the State : Blisset's Case (7) ; Shelley v. Westbrooke (8). The cases down to 1859 are collected in In re Moore, an infant (9), where the Court was divided in opinion as to what amount of improper conduct would. forfeit the right of a guardian for nurture to the custody of a child. The Court protects the religious convictions of a child, irrespective-of how they have been acquired. The object of the father here in claiming his child is not bond ,fide ; he wants to hand her over to the Irish Church Missions Society, who are the real Respondents here. [The Respondent's counsel here stated they appeared for the father of the child, and for no other client.] (1) L. R. 8 Ch. App. 637. (2) 8 Ir. Ch. R. 173. (3) 8 D. M. & G. 760. (4) I. It. 5 Eq. 98. (5) L. R. 6 Ch. App. 639. (6) 8 Ir. Ch. R. 306. (7) Lofft's Rep.748. (8) Jacob, 266. (9) 11 Ir. C. L. R. 418. VOL. XI.] EQUITY. SERIES. 467 Jellett, Q. C., and Mr. Porter, Q. C. (with them Mr. Chancery. .Bewley), for the father of the minor 1877. The father's having allowed Protestant sponsors to stand for his child is a strong indication of his intention from the first as to her religion : Talbot v. Shrewsbury (1). There are difficulties in the way of making this child a ward of Court ; her father is living, .and she has no property. He has not renounced his natural guarÂÂdianship, so as to have allowed his child to imbibe certain religious views, and then to be coming forward to object to her having done so. Supposing the Petitioner's offer, which is an attempt to barter with the Court, were out of the case, the father could not...