Article 213 of the Family Code provides that "in case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be exercised by the parent designated by the court. The court shall take into account all relevant considerations, especially the choice of the child over seven years of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit. No child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise."
As an exception to the second paragraph of said provision, various jurisprudence provide the following as compelling reasons to remove a mother's custody over a child below 7 years of age: immorality, neglect and abandonment, drug addiction and non-employment (Cervantes v. Fajardo, 169 SCRA 575; Medina v. Macabili, 27 SCRA 502). In addition, habitual drunkenness, maltreatment of the child, insanity and being sick with a communicable disease may also be taken into consideration (Perez v. CA, 255 SCRA 661).
But the paramount question to be considered by the courts is what is best for the happiness and welfare of the child (Espiritu v. CA, 242 SCRA 363). In Finlay v. Finlay (1925) the court acts to do what is best for the interest of the child and put itself in a position of a "wise," affectionate, and careful parent.
In Peo. ex rel Meredith v. Meredith, a 1947 case, this same rule was equally applied to an illegitimate child. (Pineda, E.L., Family Code of the Philippines Annotated: EO 209, 1999 ed.)
As an exception to the second paragraph of said provision, various jurisprudence provide the following as compelling reasons to remove a mother's custody over a child below 7 years of age: immorality, neglect and abandonment, drug addiction and non-employment (Cervantes v. Fajardo, 169 SCRA 575; Medina v. Macabili, 27 SCRA 502). In addition, habitual drunkenness, maltreatment of the child, insanity and being sick with a communicable disease may also be taken into consideration (Perez v. CA, 255 SCRA 661).
But the paramount question to be considered by the courts is what is best for the happiness and welfare of the child (Espiritu v. CA, 242 SCRA 363). In Finlay v. Finlay (1925) the court acts to do what is best for the interest of the child and put itself in a position of a "wise," affectionate, and careful parent.
In Peo. ex rel Meredith v. Meredith, a 1947 case, this same rule was equally applied to an illegitimate child. (Pineda, E.L., Family Code of the Philippines Annotated: EO 209, 1999 ed.)
No comments:
Post a Comment