Culver v. Cooke

Burke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order of the Orphans’ Court of Wicomico County, passed on the 11th day of June; 1918, rescinding and annulling the guardian bond of Herman W. Culver, guardian of Virginia E. and Margaret E. Lecates, infants. The record shows that Olga M. Adkins, the mother of said infants, died intestate on the 6th day of May, 1918. She had been twice married.

She first married Floyd Lecates, and after his death she married Riley W. Adkins. The infant children above named are the issue of the first marriage. After the-death of Mrs. Adkins, N. B. Lecates, the grandfather of said infants, filed a. petition in the Orphans’ Court for Wicomico County, asking that a guardian he appointed for them. This, petition was filed on the 14th day of May, 1918, and on the same day the Court appointed Herman W. Culver, guardian for said children, and on the same day he filed an approved bond as guardian.

On the 21st day of May, 1918, Mrs. Sallie Cook, the mother of Mrs. Adkins, and Riley W. Adkins, filed a petition in said Court in' which, among other things, it is charged: “(a) Tour petitioner, Mrs. Sallie Cook, has made her home with her daughter, the said Olga, both during the lifetime of her first husband, and continued to do so after her marriage to your petitioner, Riley W. Adkins; that her daughter was in delicate health, which cast upon your said petitioner, Mrs. Cook, much of the care and training of the said children; that she had full opportunity of seeing and knowing the tender and affectionate regard which the stepfather and stepchildren had for each other, which was as cordial as if the actual relation of parent and children had existed. ⁶⁸⁵ “(b) Yonr petitioners are advised that Herman Culver has been appointed guardian of the said children, and claims that he has the right to the custody of said children, although he is not related by blood to the said children and has no other relation than that of marriage to their aunt—that is to say, sister of their deceased father. “Your petitioners charge that he nor his wife ever had any care or responsibility in the slightest degree, remotely or directly, in the maintenance and training of the said children, nor did the two families—that is to say, the said Culver and wife, and the mother of the said children—have any family intercourse during the lifetime of the said mother; but your petitioners are advised that in about a week after the death of said mother the said Herman Culver was appointed guardian without any notice to your petitioners and without their knowledge, though the said children were then and have been continuously under the care and protection of your petitioners; that it was the special request of their mother, made immediately prior to her death, that your petitioner, the grandmother and next of kin of said children, should have the care and custody of the said children; but so it is that neither of your petitioners have liad any opportunity of being heard by this Honorable Court as to the wishes of the mother, the grandmother or stepfather, though both of the latter hold the closest and most affectionate relations to the children, than whom there is no one more interested in their welfare. “Your petitioners, therefore, pray this Honorable Court to revoke and cancel the order of 14th day of May, 1918, appointing Herman Culver guardian as aforesaid, and to appoint a day in the near future for consideration of the appointment of a