Meades, Minors

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 18 February 1871
• Date: 18 February 1871
• Court: Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

IN THE MATTER OF MEADES, MINORS.

Eyre v. The Countess of Shaftesbury 2 Wh. & Tud. L. C. 563.

Creuze v. HunterENR 2 Cox, 242; S. C. 2 Br. C. C. 499, n.

De Manneville v. De Manneville 10 Ves. 52.

Lyons v. BlenkinENR Jac. 245.

Thomas v. RobertsENR 3 De G. & Sm. 758.

Wellesley v. BeaufortENR 2 Russ. 1; S. C. on Appeal, 2 Bl. N. S. 124.

Warde v. WardeENR 2 Phil. 786.

Alicia Race's Case Kinderley, V. C., 1857. Not reported.

Ball v. BallENR 2 Sim. 35.

Whitfield v. Hales 12 Ves. 492.

Butler v. FreemanENR 1 Ambler, 301.

Stourton v. Stourton 8 De G. M'N. & G. 760.

Witty v. Marshall 1 Y. & Coll. C. C. 68.

Lyons v. BlenkinENR Jac. 245.

O'Malleys, MinorsUNK 8 Ir. Ch. 291.

In re BrowneUNK 2 Ir. Ch. 151.

Shelley v. WestbrookeENR Jac. 266, n.

Davis v. Davis 10 W. R. 245.

Wellesley v. BeaufortENR 2 Russ. 1; S. C. on Appeal, 2 Bl. N. S. 124.

Thomas v. Roberts 3 De. G. & Sm. 758.

In re FynnENR 2 De G & Sm. 457.

Austin v. AustinENR 34 Beav. 263.

In re NewberyELRELR L. R. 1 Eq. 431; S. C. on Appeal, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 263.

Talbot v. The Earl of ShrewsburyENR 4 My. & Cr. 672.

Wellesley v. Duke of BeaufortENR 2 Russ. 1.

Duke of Beaufort v. BertieENR 1 P. Wms. 703.

Whitfield v. Hales 12 Ves. 493.

Talbot v. The Earl of Shrewsbury 4 M. & C. 672.

Re Browne, a MinorUNK 2 Ir. Ch. Rep. 151.

Davis v. Davis 10 W. R. 245.

Re NewberyELR L. R. 1 Eq. 431.

Lyons v. BlenkinENR Jac. 260.

Witty v. MarshallENR 1 Y. & C. C. C. 68.

Stourton v. StourtonENR 8 De G. M. & G. 768.

O'Malleys, MinorsUNK 8 Ir. Ch. Rep. 291.

Browne, a MinorUNK 2 Ir. Ch. Rep. 151.

Re Browne, a MinorIR 2 I. Ch. R. 151.

Davis v. Davis 10 W. R. 245.

Re Browne, a Minor 2 I. Ch. Rep. 160.

Alicia Race Not reported.

Witty v. MarshallENR 1 Y. & C. C. C. 71.

Infants — Religious Education — Parental Authority — Jurisdiction.

98 THE IRISH REPORTS. Chancery. IN THE MATTER OF MEADES, MINORS. 1871. Feb. 18. Infant-Religious Education-Parental Authority-Jurisdiction. The Court of Chancery has jurisdiction to restrain a father from interfering with the religious education of his infant child; but that jurisdiction will not be exercised unless the Court see that the interference of the father will be injurious to the happiness and welfare of the child. The jurisdiction of the Court to control the legal rights of the father over his infant children considered; and the cases on the subject reviewed. Where the Court has a difficulty, by reason of conflicting a'idavits, in asÂÂÂcertaining whether a child has received religious impressions which cannot be interfered with without injury to him, the Court will see the child and ascerÂÂÂtain, by a personal examination, to what extent those impressions have been reÂÂÂceived; and the Court has jurisdiction to do so, even in the lifetime of the father. IN this case a petition was presented by Mary Catherine RoÂÂÂnayne, the maternal aunt of the minors, praying that the minors might be made wards of Court, and for the usual inquiries and directions ; and also that Robert Warren Meade, the father of the minors, might be restrained from in any way interfering with the religion, or the religious education, of the minors ; the PetiÂÂÂtioner undertaking to have the minors maintained and educated in a manner suitable to their condition in life. The facts of the case are fully stated in the judgment of the LORD CHANCELLOR. Hr. Butt, Q. C. (with him Mr. Palles, Q. C., and Mr. William O'Brien), for the Petitioner. The jurisdiction of the Court to control the legal rights of a father over his children has been affirmed by a number of decisions which will be found collected in the notes to Byre v. The Countess of Shaftesbury (1) ; of which it is enough to mention Creuze v. (1) 2 Wh. & Tud. L. C. 563. VOL. V.) EQUITY SERIES. 99 Hunter (1) ; De Manneville v. De Manneville (2); Lyons v. Blenkin (3); Thomas v. Roberts (4), and Wellesley v. Beaufort (5). See also Chambers on Infancy, 119, and Story's Eq. Jur. Vol. II., 564, sect. 1341. The foundation of the jurisdiction is stated by Lord Eldon in De Manneville v. De Manneville and Wellesley v. Beaufort; " it is an authority," he says, " delegated to the Court by the SoveÂÂÂreign, who, as parens Patrice, has the care of all persons who are unable to take care of themselves." An objection will, no doubt, be raised to the exercise of the jurisdiction in the present instance, on the ground that the children have no property. But in Wellesley v. Beaufort, Lord Eldon points out that it is not from want of jurisdiction that the Court does not interfere in such case, but from want of means to exercise the jurisdiction. In Thomas v. Roberts, the child had no,property, yet the Court interfered and restrained the father from getting possession of the child. In Warde v. Warde (6), the Court acted on the undertaking of the mother to support the children ; and in Alicia Race's Case (7), Vice-Chancellor Kindersley, as appears by his order (8), acted on the undertaking of counsel at the bar that the child would be provided for. In Ball v. Ball (9) there was nothing but an offer by the mother to maintain the children ; and Sir Anthony Hart, in refusing the application, never alludes to that circumstance as a ground for his doing so. On the same point he cited Whitfield v. Hales (10), and Butler v. Freeman (11). As to the remaining question : whether this is a proper case for the exercise of the jurisdiction ? What the Court consults in all these cases is, not the feelings of the father, but the happiness and well-being of the child ; and if the Court sees that to force a new religion on these children would be injurious to them, it will inÂÂÂterfere and prevent that being done : Stourton v. Stourton (12) ; (1) 2 Cox, 242 ; S. C. 2 Br. C. C. (7) Kinderley, V. C., 1857. Not 499, n. reported. (2) 10 Ves. 52. (8) A copy of the order was pro (3) Sac. 245. duced. (4) 3 •De G. & Sm. 758. (9) 2 Sim. 35. (5) 2 Russ. 1; S. C. on Appeal, 2 (10) 12 Ves. 492. BI. N. S. 124. (11) 1 Ambler, 301. (5) 2 Phil. 786. (12) 8 De G. M'N. & G. 760. 112 THE IRISH REPORTS. Witty v. Marshall (1) ; and Lyons v. Blenkin (2). In O'Malleys, Minors (3), Lord. Chancellor Napier treats religious impressions formed at an early age as an interest vested in the child which it is the duty of the Court to protect. We submit that to force a new religion upon these children, who have been brought up in the Roman Catholic faith, and carefully instructed in its doctrines, will have the effect of unsettling the religious impressions which they have formed, without substituting others in their place ; and will lead to indifference to all religion, perhaps to total infidelity. The injurious effects which such a course would have upon the children are well stated in the judgments of the Lord Justices, in Stourton v. Stourton ; and are, we submit, a sufficient ground to induce the Court to act in the present case, and restrain the father from interfering with the religion of the children. He also cited In re Browne (4) ; Shelley v. Wesibroolce (5) ; and Davis v. Davis (6). Dr. Ball, Q. C., Mr. Walsh, Q. C. (with them Mr. Bewley), for Mr. Meade. The jurisdiction which the Court is now called upon to exerÂÂÂcise is one which, during the father's lifetime, is exercised with the greatest reluctance, and only in cases of the greatest extremity, and under circumstances of overwhelming necessity. We do not deny the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with and control the father's legal rights, if the interests of the child require it ; but we say that in no case has the Court interfered where the father was a person of unimpeachable character, and where his position and means were such as to render him a proper person to have the care and bringing up of the children. The cases principally relied on for the Petitioner-viz., Wellesley v. Beaufort (7), Thomas v. RoÂÂÂberts (8), Shelley v. Westbrooke (5); and Lyons v. Blenkin (2); were cases of a very different description. In Wellesley v. Beaufort the (1) 1 Y. & Coll. C. C. 68. (2) he. 245. (3) 8 Ir. Ch. 291. (4) 2 Ir. Ch. 151. (5) he. 266, n. (6) 10 W. R. 245. (7) 2 Russ. 1; S. C. on Appeal, 2 Bl. N. S. 124. (8) 3 De G. & Sm. '58. VoL. V.] EQUITY SERIES. 101 father was a person of profligate habits and principles, who, not Chancery. content with setting before his children an example of profligacy 1870. and immorality in his own conduct, endeavoured to corrupt their In re minds by actual teaching of a most disgraceful character. In Thomas IlEthA.roD' RE: v. Roberts-the Agapemone Case-the father professed doctrines of a very peculiar character, and Vice-Chancellor Sir J. L. Knight Bruce refused on that ground to permit him to have the custody of the child. In Shelley v. Westbroolce, the father was a man of irreliÂÂÂgious and immoral principles. In Lyons v. Blenkin the circumstances were very special. In 111 re Fynn (1), although the Vice-ChanÂÂÂcellor condemned the conduct of the father, he did not deprive him of the care of his children. As to the other cases cited, in which the father was dead, the distinction between them and the present is plain. Where the father is dead, the position of the child is finally and certainly ascertained, and the Court will regard the wishes of the father, expressed in his lifetime ; but where he is alive, the position of the child is not fixed, for the father has a right to bring it up in what religion he pleases. Again, these children have no property, and in such case the Court can act for no useful or practical purpose. In Wellesley v. Beaufort, at p. 21, Lord Eldon points out the reason of the rule that the Court will not interfere where the child has no property. In In re Fynn, the Court refused to act on the covenant of the children's grandmother to provide for them ; and in Shelley's Case £2000 had actually been transferred by...