“It is not contended that this Court should assume the power of the Lord Chancellor to separate children from their father, on the ground of immorality in him. But, they being in the mother’s custody, and of a tender age, the Court will hesitate to enforce an order, the effect of which must be, not only that they shall be delivered to the father, but that the mother shall have no means of superintending, or even of insisting upon access to them.” (page 5)
The ultimatum of this case was that the father has custody of their children simply because he has a natural right to. It seemed like all other factors were ignored, such as most importantly why she took custody of the children away from Mr. Greenhill in the first place. Not only was he unfaithful to her, but he also had the audacity to demand them back. She had reason to do so and that should be enough. The court even acknowledged that she only wanted custody until at least their tender year (age seven), yet they still dismissed her case. She had every human right to her children. The Laws of that time surrounding women strip their humanity to the point that they can’t even be safe and well with their children.
If there have been previous cases like this, where mothers ask for the custody of their children, why was the question not raised of why they make these cases against their husbands? Yes, technically women are one with their husbands in the eye of the law, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t two separate people with their own thoughts and actions.