| Notes |
- Post Crescent 12/31/1920
FIGHT MOTHER'S EFFORT TO TAKE BACK HER CHILD
Habeas Corpus Proceedings Are Heard by Judge Bottensek in County Court.
A habeas corpus proceeding which related to the alleged detention of Evalyn Verstegen, was held before Judge John Bottensek in county court Thursday. The taking of testimony was concluded and the attorneys will make their arguments next Wednesday afternoon. Rooney & Grogan represent the applicants and Fred V. Heinemann the respondent. The court room was crowded.
In their return to the writ of habeas corpus, the respondents, Reinhard Wegner and Viola Wegner said in part:
"That on July 30, 1917, the respondent, Viola Wegner, then unmarried and known as Viola Honick was a member of the household of her mother, Sophia Werner, 934 Union street, Appleton.
"That the petitioner, Elizabeth Tease, is a sister of the respondent, and resides in the village of Little Chute. That Elizabeth Tease was formerly Elizabeth Honick, having been twice married, being the wife of Cornelius Verstegen and the mother of his four children of which Evalyn is the youngest, having been born after the death of said Cornelius Verstegen. That the petitioner there-after remarried and is now the wife of Joseph V. Tease and the mother of his child.
"That the petitioner from the time that Evalyn Verstegen was of the age of two weeks has not had the care or custody of the infant in controversy. That at the age of two weeks the infant was placed with an aunt on her father's side named Jennie Vanden Wylemberg at Wrightstown, where she remained until July 30, 1917, or thereabouts, at which time the Vanden Wylemberg family voluntarily returned the infant to petitioner, refusing to further care for her.
"That upon July 30, 1917 the petitioner brought the infant to Appleton and voluntarily delivered said infant to her mother, Sophia Werner, and the respondent, Viola Wegner, then a member of her mother's family, at the same time promising that the respondent, Viola Wegner, could take said child as hers and bring her up and raise her as if she were her own child, said petitioner stating that she did not regard the child as her own and not bearing the same love and affection for her that she did for her other three children and that while she could not give papers she passed her promise never, under any circumstances, to take said child from the custody of the respondent, Viola Wegner.
"That said infant, Evalyn Verstegen, has been constantly in the care and custody of the respondent since July 30, 1917, to all intents and purposes as if she were her own child. That the respondents have borne all expense of the support, maintenance and clothing of the child since that date except that petitioner during all of such time has furnished for said child goods for one dress, one pair of shoes and two pairs of stockings.
"That petitioner has never shown any love or affection for such child, but on the other hand has shown aversion and dislike in many ways and instances. That the husband of said petitioner has refused to receive the child in his home and has refused to accord her support and has repeatedly confirmed the care and custidy of the child in the respondent.
"That the respondents have learned to love the child as if she were their own and have nurtured and maintained her in accordance with their conditions in life and that their conduct has merited and received the love of the child and that such respondents are willing to continue as the foster parents of such child and give her every advantage within their means.
"That the respondents were married May 22, 1919, and from that time on the child has been a member of their family and accorded every privilege that their own child might have had.
"That as respondents are informed and believe, the efforts on the part of petitioner to obtain custody of the child are not made in good faith and that she and her husband intend to place the child with others and that a monetary consideration lies behind their efforts coupled with matters of religious differences.
"That the future welfare and best interests of the child, now five years and nine months of age, demand and require that the care and custody remain in respondents."
|
1915 - 1967 (51 years)