{ "id": 8725144, "name": "The STATE DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC WELFARE et al v. Lula Mae Stracner LIPE, as mother and next friend of Michael Stracner, a minor", "name_abbreviation": "State Department of Public Welfare v. Lipe ex rel. Atracner", "decision_date": "1975-04-21", "docket_number": "74-357", "first_page": "1015", "last_page": "1018", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "257 Ark. 1015" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "521 S.W.2d 526" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "230 Miss. 749", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 1328234 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/miss/230/0749-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 Kan. 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "case_ids": [ 55457 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/kan/188/0185-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 S.E. 2d 49", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 Ga. 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 251833 ], "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga/208/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 S.E. 2d 456", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "209 Ga. 535", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 255386 ], "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga/209/0535-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 Ark. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1475813 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1945, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/209/0397-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 353, "char_count": 5251, "ocr_confidence": 0.887, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.699501810169008e-07, "percentile": 0.9286620571315162 }, "sha256": "db2815925dd91308cc8ade0fe798a7ad299ff4f8d7f38fca510d2f894443d8aa", "simhash": "1:8255aa424f1ef73a", "word_count": 882 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:07.797047+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The STATE DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC WELFARE et al v. Lula Mae Stracner LIPE, as mother and next friend of Michael Stracner, a minor" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThis is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the appellee, Lula Mae Stracner Lipe, as the mother and next friend of Michael Stracner, a minor born January 26, 1956. The defendants are the State Department of Public Welfare and the Arkansas Children\u2019s Colony Board, the latter now designated as the Arkansas Board of Mental Retardation. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 59-1003 (Repl. 1971). The petition alleges that Michael is unlawfully detained in custody at the Children\u2019s Colony, in Conway.\nThe petition was filed in the Pulaski Circuit Court and was presented to Judge William J. Kirby. Judge Kirby issued a writ of habeas, directed to the above named defendants and returnable to himself. The defendants objected to the proceedings, on the ground that the writ should have been made returnable to the circuit court of Faulkner county, where Michael is detained. The trial court overruled that objection and ultimately entered a final order finding that Michael had been improperly committed to the Children\u2019s Colony. The order directed that Michael be released \u201cto the custody of Lula Mae Stracner Lipe, mother and next friend.\u201d\nThe defendants were right in their objection to the court\u2019s jurisdiction. The Pulaski circuit court had jurisdiction to issue the writ, it is true; but that jurisdiction did not rest, as the appellee argues, upon the statute fixing Pulaski county as the venue for actions against State officers. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-603 (Repl. 1962). Instead, the court\u2019s jurisdiction was proper under the statute which provides that the Supreme, circuit, or chancery court\u2019s power to issue writs of habeas corpus shall be coextensive with the State. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 34-1702 (Repl. 1962). In State v. Ballard, 209 Ark. 397, 190 S.W. 2d 522 (1945), we relied upon that statute in sustaining the Independence chancery court\u2019s authority to issue the writ, even though it was directed to the custodian of a person in Saline county.\nThe question here, however, is where the writ should have been made returnable. The statute provides that the writ is to be directed \u201cto the person in whose custody the prisoner is detained, and made returnable . . . before the Supreme, circuit or chancery judges of the county in which it may be served.\u201d Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 34-1710. Hence the controlling question is the identity of \u201cthe person in whose custody the prisoner is detained.\u201d\nWe construe the statute to mean the person, usually an officer of some sort, having physical custody of the prisoner. \u201cHabeas corpus,\u201d literally translated, means, \u201cYou have the body.\u201d In the few cases in which the issue has arisen, the courts have stressed physical custody in determining venue. Gibson v. Wood, 209 Ga. 535, 74 S.E. 2d 456 (1953); McBurnett v. Warren, 208 Ga. 225, 66 S.E. 2d 49 (1951); Love v. Love, 188 Kan. 185, 360 P. 2d 1061 (1961); Logan v. Rankin, 230 Miss. 749, 94 So. 2d 330 (1957).\nOur statutes seem to be based upon that point of view, which has obvious practical advantages. The person having custody of the prisoner may be designated merely by the name of his office, if any. \u00a7 34-1711. Service is to be on the person to whom the writ is directed, \u201cor, in his absence from the place where the prisoner is confined, on the person having him in immediate custody.\u201d \u00a7 34-1713. The language just quoted suggests that the person to whom the writ is directed will ordinarily be found at \u201cthe place where the prisoner is confined.\u201d Neither the officers of the State Department of Public Welfare nor the members of the Board of Mental Retardation (who are appointed by Congressional districts, \u00a7 59-1004) would ordinarily be found at the Children\u2019s Colony, in Conway. We conclude that the Superintendent of the Arkansas Children\u2019s Colony, a position created by statute, \u00a7\u00a7 59-1101 and 59-1113, best fits the statutory designation of the person in whose custody Michael is detained. It may be observed that the same approach was followed by the litigants in the Ballard case, supra, where the writ was directed to the Superintendent of the Training School for Girls, which fixed the venue in Saline county.\nIt is appropriate for us to add, in the hope of avoiding needless litigation, that this habeas corpus proceeding is not one for the determination of custodial rights as between Michael\u2019s parents. It simply tests the legality of his detention at the Children\u2019s Colony. The issue of custody has been repeatedly before the Pope chancery court, where it originally arose in the parents\u2019 divorce case brought in 1967, when Michael was 11. If the Faulkner circuit court finds the Colony\u2019s detention to be illegal, custody will be determined by the prior orders of the Pope chancery court. Under our law the circuit court is not the proper forum for the determination of child custody, which often gives rise to litigation extending over many years, as conditions change. That jurisdiction is vested in the chancery courts.\nReversed and remanded for further proceedings.", "type": "majority", "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Monroe L. Bethea, for appellants.", "R. W. Raster, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The STATE DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC WELFARE et al v. Lula Mae Stracner LIPE, as mother and next friend of Michael Stracner, a minor\n74-357\n521 S.W. 2d 526\nOpinion delivered April 21, 1975\nMonroe L. Bethea, for appellants.\nR. W. Raster, for appellee." }, "file_name": "1015-01", "first_page_order": 1059, "last_page_order": 1062 }