Jeffers v. State

Delaplaine, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This proceeding was commenced in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County, sitting as a Juvenile Court, in October, 1952, on the petition of Elva Mae Stanford, a resident of that county, alleging that her daughter, Iris Stanford, age 10, was a “dependent child” within the meaning of the Maryland Juvenile Court Act, Code 1951, art. 26, sec. 51, for the reason that the child’s father, James Albert Jeffers, a resident of Baltimore, had failed to contribute to her support since December 26, 1948. In November, 1952, a summons for Jeffers was returned non est. In February, 1953, another summons was issued for him to appear at a hearing of the case in Centreville on March 6.

He appeared in Court on that day, and was informed of the charge against him. He entered a general denial of the charge. After an informal discussion by the State’s Attorney and the attorney for the defense, the Court determined that the child was a dependent child and in need of care and ²²⁹ treatment, and placed her in the custody of the mother. At the same time, the Court ordered Jeffers to show cause on or before April 3 why he should not contribute to the child’s support.

On April 10 Jeffers appeared again in Court; but, instead of showing cause as ordered, he petitioned the Court to dismiss the charge against him. He set forth the following six reasons in support of his petition: (1) That the proceeding was not commenced within two years after the child’s birth, or within two years after the date of the last alleged payment for support mentioned in the notice served upon him. (2) That he requests a trial by the Court sitting as a Criminal Court and governed by the rules of evidence and all other rights to which he may be entitled. (3) That he is being denied rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the State of Maryland.

(4) That the provision of the statute authorizing the Juvenile Court to determine paternity in disputed cases is in direct conflict with the bastardy statute. (5) That the provision of the statute as to the right to be tried by jury is ambiguous and therefore invalid. (6) That he has an absolute right to be tried under the criminal law according to the usual criminal procedure. On the same day the Court passed an order dismissing his petition.

It