Show MRS GODDARD GIVEN CUSTODY OF CHILD ORIGINAL DECREE STANDS BUT tt givlin MOKE RIGHTS if child is taken out of state a bond of aa must be faiben judge gendered len dered a decree in the cabe of acua vs lit ward E goddard ilu the second Juat cial district court today awarding alin a taw limitations me custody of the child to the nother the court sums up the decree as follows 1 I think the decree as originally granted should stand except that the general care and custody of the child should be given to its mother that the father should at all reasonable tamest have full and free access to the child that it for the mothers benefit it shall become necessary to take aitho child without the state that she shall alva a bond in the sum ot that child will bo returned again into the state that the child shall not be removed from the state at any time for more than six mol hs nor remain within the slate at any time less chaa two weeks that before removing the child from the stata the mother shall cause the father to be advised of such fact at least ten days before removal and upon bringing the child within the state the shall cause the father to be advised thereof within 24 hours after the arrival of the child during the childs absence from the the father shall hereafter pay to the plain tiff for the childs benefit the sum ot 15 per month and during the childs presence within the state the father shall hereafter pay to the plaintiff tor the benefit of the child the sue ot 25 per month in giving grounds for this the court finds that the couple were married in 1898 that the child was born 1899 that the husband after tle birth of the child was more or less neglectful and that the wife was indiscreet often accompanying other men than her husband to various places that the mother failed to give the child the care usually bestowed by cothers that in 1903 a decree of divorce was granted the wife on the grounds of desertion and the custody of the child was given the mother with certain restrictions one being that without special permission from the court she could not take it without the state the court found later that it had been imposed upon and that the husband was not guilty 0 de bertion ser tion and that there was nothing in the conduct af the father which should deprive him of association with his child but that his avocation as a railroad employed renders it impracticable for him to care tor the child and that the conduct of the mother since tho divorce had evidently been such that there was no reason why she should be deprived of the custody of the child |