[Indexed as: (Inglefield case), “The King against Inglefield” (“Law Report, Hillary Term, 26 Geo. III.”), The Daily Universal Register (London, England), Jan. 30, 1786] {Parental Kidnapping}
Mr. Erskine shewed cause a rule which had been obtained the last term against Captain Inglefield, to shew cause why his children, mentioned in that rule, should not remain at a boarding-school, at Greenwich, where they then were, to the further order of the court, and that the mother might have the power of visiting them there.
Mr. Erskine adverted to the late disagreeable family disputes between the Captain and his Lady, and to the suit now depending in the Ecclesiastical Court, instituted by her, for the restitution of conjugal rites. He stated, that in consequence of the Lady’s having been permitted to visit the children at their boarding-school, she had some time since taken them away, and concealed them from the Captain for three months; on which he applied to the Court for a habeas corpus, by which the children were brought before Mr. Justice Willes at Chambers, where a rule was made, that the children, by the consent of the father should return and remain at the boarding-school for a certain time now elapsed. The rule was applied for by Mr. Inglefield, in order to continue that order. But Mr. Erskine insisted the Court had no power of granting any motion of the kind, and that Capt. Inglefield assuring the Court through him, and of which the Captain, if necessary, was ready to make affidavit, that he had no intention at present of removing the children – which Mrs. Inglefield was led to fear, from a note of the Captain’s expressing great unhappiness on account of his family, and willing that he and his children were in some distant part of the world to avoid it.
Mr. Bearcroft who had obtained this rule, acknowledged, that he could not press for it as within the power of the Court to grant; and that, he was satisfied with the assurance conveyed, as to Cat. Inglefield’s attention.
Lord Masefield observed, that the father has by law, a right to the custody of his children, and on that ground is entitled to a habeas corpus, to recover them when improperly withheld; but if the Court happens to see that it is considerably for the benefit of the child, that the father should not exert his rights, all they can do is, to set the child at liberty, and tell the father he cannot meddle without incurring a contempt of the Court, and the child may go where it pleases. – But this power did not extend to the present application, or the circumstances of the case.
The rule was accordingly discharged.
