From what I gathered the law states that if the child is legitimate and there is no concern of harm to the child then the father will be granted custody. The argument in Greenhill was that the mother would be able to show more affection to her children and the father had no connection to them. She felt they would be better off with her than he and his mother. The court ruled that because the father was abusive the law still applied and he should give full custody. They referred back to another court case The King v. Dobbyn where the father was accused of committing cruel acts and was unfaithful. In this case, the court favored the mother since the children needed to be nurtured. There were affidavits from other people to support that the father could be trusted to raise the children. On page 4 the judge reflects on the fact that the husband claims to have essentially begged his wife to forgive him and would give up his mistress if it meant that they could continue to live together. He believed that his wife would not be able to support their children. The idea of property seems to be hung over women’s heads often. They could be the most virtuous and affectionate mothers but because the law states that the father has the right to the children then all of that goes out the window. The judge in a way tries to justify the mistress and describes her as living and being loved by another women’s children. That to me is absolutely a crazy interpretation of what the situation is. According to the Custody Act if the woman was to commit adultery she could not benefit from the law, but this does not apply to men. Why is this a double standard of the 18th century?

The court wants to be able to find the best solution to preserve the welfare of the children. In Blisset’s case, it is explicitly stated that if the father is bankrupt and cannot monetarily take care of his children then the court would not put the children in his care. In the Skinner case, there is a lot of discussion about adultery and cruel treatment. These circumstances would factor into the decision being made. The courts seem to care about the child’s welfare, yet, they seem to side with the men still. Even though the father was in jail and living with another woman, the court still cannot rule where the child belongs (so it is with the father).

  • Why would a mother of an illegitimate child be preferred in custody, but not if she is married?
  • Why is a child considered an infant up until age 7?
  • Why is a third party introduced (Skinner)?
  • Paternal rights? “Best interest”?