Abandon and Abandonment, Historical 2 in Europe

Abandonment Distinguished from Gift, or Barter, or Surrender

• In Stephens v. Mansfield, II Cal. 363, it was held that there could be no such thing as an abandonment of land in favor of a particular individual and for a consideration. The court said: “There can be no such thing as abandonment in favor of a particular individual, or for a consideration. Such act would be a gift or sale. An Abandonment is ‘ the relinquishment of a right, the giving up of something to which we are entitled’ (Bouv.).
• ‘ Abandonment must be made by the owner, without being pressed by any duty, necessity, or utility to himself, but simply because he desires no longer to possess the thing; and further, it must be made without any desire that any other person shall acquire the same; for if it were made for a consideration, it would be a sale or barter, and if without consideration, but with an intention that some other person should become the possessor, it would be a gift.”‘ And see, to the same effect, Richardson v. McNulty, 24 Cal. 344.
• In Hagan v. Gaskill, 42 N. J. Eq. 215, a lease provided that an abandonment of the property should annul the lease. It was held that a surrender to the lessor was not such an abandonment as would defeat the rights of creditors. The court said: ” I think there is a great difference between abandon and surrender.”

Abandonment of Children

• Abandon, as used in the Michigan statute against the abandonment of children, is used in its ordinary sense; i.e., “to forsake, to leave without the intention to return to; to renounce all care or protection of.” Shannon v. People, 5 Mich. 89.
• To abandon or expose a child under two years of age, as used in 24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, S 27, “includes a wilful omission to take charge of the child on the part of a. person legally bound to do so, and any mode of dealing with it calculated to leave it exposed to risk without protection.” Steph. Cr. 196, citing Reg. v. White, L. R. i C. C. R. 311; Reg. V. Falkingham, L. R. i C. C. R. 222.
• In State v. Davis, 70 Mo. 468, the court said: “The abandonment of a child is a statutory offense, and the language of the statute is sufficient, in an indictment, to charge the crime. Abandonment does not mean a mere temporary absence from home, or temporary neglect of parental duty.”
• Bouvier defines abandonment as “the act of a husband, or wife, who leaves his or her consort, wilfully and with an intention of causing perpetual separation.’ Webster defines it as ‘ a total desertion; a state of being forsaken.’
• Currently, in Iowa, abandonment is “the relinquishment or surrender . . . of the parental rights, duties, or privileges inherent n the parent-child relationship.” Iowa Code § 232.2(1). It involves giving up one’s parental rights and responsibilities along with an intent to forego them. In re A.B., 554 N.W.2d 291, 293 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). The State must prove by clear and convincing evidence both the intention to abandon and the acts evincing the intention. Id. A parent must execute one’s responsibilities to the extent practicable and feasible considering the circumstances.
• See also Parent and Child.

Abandonment in the Sense of Desertion

• Abandonment may be defined to be the act of wilfully leaving the wife, with the intention of causing a palpable separation between the parties, and implies an actual desertion of the wife by the husband. (Stanbrough v. Stanbrough, 60 Ind. 279).
• Has abandoned means that the husband has voluntarily left the wife, with an intention to forsake her entirely and never to return to her, and never to resume his marital duties towards her, or to claim his marital rights.
• Moore v. Stevenson, 27 Conn. 25. A wife alleged, in an action against her husband for support, that he had abandoned her. The statute under which the action was brought used the word desertion. The complaint was held sufficient, the court saying: “The word deserted, as used in the statute,and the word abandoned, as used in the pleading, convey the same idea; that is, the act of wilfully leaving the wife with the intention of causing a palpable separation—a cessation from cohabitation.” Carr v. Carr, 6 Ind. App. 377.
• In Levering v. Levering, 16 Md. 218, it is said that failure to support the wife, accompanied by intemperate habits and violence justifying her in leaving her husband, would amount to an abandonment by him.
• See also the title Divorce, Historic.

See Also

• Abandon, Historical
• Abandon, Historical 3
• Adverse Posesion, Historical
• Abandonment—Marine Insurance. See Abandonment and Total Loss (in Marine Insurance), Historicalal.
• Abandonment—Animals. See Animals, Historical.
• Abandonment — Wife. See Husband and Wife in Law.