The case of Brennan vs. Holden opened in the emptied court room of Judge
Norman L. Carter, with a couple of bored members of the press wishing
they were elsewhere. For the first two hours, it was no more than
formalized outlining of the whole situation.
The plaintiff identified himself, testified that he was indeed the legal
guardian of the minor James Quincy Holden, entered a transcript of the
will in evidence, and then went on to make his case. He had provided
a home atmosphere that was, to the best of his knowledge, the type of
home atmosphere that would have been highly pleasing to the deceased
parents--especially in view of the fact that this home was one and the
same house as theirs and that little had been changed. He was supported
by the Mitchells. It all went off in the slow, cumbersome dry phraseology
of the legal profession and the sum and substance of two hours of
back-and-forth question-and-answer was to establish the fact that Paul
Brennan had provided a suitable home for the minor, James Quincy Holden,
and that the minor James Quincy Holden had refused to live in it and had
indeed demonstrated his objections by repeatedly absenting himself
wilfully and with premeditation.
The next half hour covered a blow-by-blow account of Paul Brennan's
efforts to have the minor restored to him. The attorneys for both sides
were alert. Brennan's counsel did not even object when Waterman paved the
way to show why James Holden wanted his freedom by asking Brennan:
"Were you aware that James Holden was a child of exceptional intellect?"
"Yes."
"And you've testified that when you moved into the Holden home, you found
things as the Holdens had provided them for their child?"
"Yes."
"In your opinion, were these surroundings suitable for James Holden?"
"They were far too advanced for a child of five."
"I asked specifically about James Holden."
"James Holden was five years old."
Waterman eyed Brennan with some surprise, then cast a glance at Frank
Manison, who sat at ease, calmly watching and listening with no sign of
objection. Waterman turned back to Brennan and said, "Let's take one more
turn around Robin Hood's Barn, Mr. Brennan. First, James Holden was an
exceptional child?"
"Yes."
"And the nature of his toys and furnishings?"
"In my opinion, too advanced for a child of five."
"But were they suitable for James Holden?"
"James Holden was a child of five."
Waterman faced Judge Carter. "Your Honor," he said, "I submit that the
witness is evasive. Will you direct him to respond to my direct question
with a direct answer?"
"The witness will answer the question properly," said Judge Carter with
a slight frown of puzzlement, "unless counsel for the witness has some
plausible objection?"'
"No objection," said Manison.
"Please repeat or rephrase your question," suggested Judge Carter.
"Mr. Brennan," said Waterman, "you've testified that James was an
exceptional child, advanced beyond his years. You've testified that the
home and surroundings provided by James Holden's parents reflected this
fact. Now tell me, were the toys, surroundings, and the home suitable for
James Holden?"
"In my opinion, no."
"And subsequently you replaced them with stuff you believed more suitable
for a child of five, is that it?"
"Yes. I did, and you are correct."
"To which he objected?"
"To which James Holden objected."
"And what was your response to his objection?"
"I overruled his objection."
"Upon what grounds?"
"Upon the grounds that the education and the experience of an adult
carries more wisdom than the desires of a child."
"Now, Mr. Brennan, please listen carefully. During the months following
your guardianship, you successively removed the books that James Holden
was fond of reading, replaced his advanced Meccano set with a set of
modular blocks, exchanged his oil-painting equipment for a child's
coloring books and standard crayolas, and in general you removed
everything interesting to a child with known superiority of intellect?"
"I did."
"And your purpose in opening this hearing was to convince this Court that
James Holden should be returned by legal procedure to such surroundings?"
"It is."
"No more questions," said Waterman. He sat down and rubbed his forehead
with the palm of his right hand, trying to think.
Manison said, "I have one question to ask of Janet Fisher, known formerly
as Mrs. Bagley."
Janet Fisher was sworn and properly identified.
"Now, Mrs. Fisher, prior to your marriage to Mr. Fisher and during your
sojourn with James Holden in the House on Martin's Hill, did you
supervise the activities of James Holden?"
"No," she said.
"Thank you," said Manison. He turned to Waterman and waved him to any
cross-questioning.
Still puzzled, Waterman asked, "Mrs. Fisher, who did supervise the House
on Martin's Hill?"
"James Holden."
"During those years, Mrs. Fisher, did James Holden at any time conduct
himself in any other manner but the actions of an honest citizen? I mean,
did he perform or suggest the performance of any illegal act to your
knowledge?"
"No, he did not."
Waterman turned to Judge Carter. "Your Honor," he said, "it seems quite
apparent to me that the plaintiff in this case has given more testimony
to support the contentions of my client than they have to support their
own case. Will the Court honor a petition that the case be dismissed?"
Judge Norman L. Carter smiled slightly. "This is irregular," he said.
"You should wait for that petition until the plaintiff's counsel has
closed his case, you know." He looked at Frank Manison. "Any objection?"
Manison said, "Your Honor, I have permitted my client to be shown in this
questionable light for no other purpose than to bring out the fact that
any man can make a mistake in the eyes of other men when in reality he
was doing precisely what he thought to be the best thing to do for
himself and for the people within his responsibility. The man who raises
his child to be a roustabout is wrong in the eyes of his neighbor who is
raising his child to be a scientist, and vice versa. We'll accept the
fact that James Holden's mind is superior. We'll point out that there
have been many cases of precocious children or child geniuses who make a
strong mark in their early years and drop into oblivion by the time
they're twenty. Now, consider James Holden, sitting there discussing
something with his attorney--I have no doubt in the world that he could
conjugate Latin verbs, discuss the effect of the Fall of Rome on Western
Civilization, and probably compute the orbit of an artificial satellite.
But can James Holden fly a kite or shoot a marble? Has he ever had the
fun of sliding into third base, or whittling on a peg, or any of the
other enjoyable trivia of boyhood? Has he--"
"One moment," said Judge Carter. "Let's not have an impassioned oration,
counsel. What is your point?"
"James Holden has a legal guardian, appointed by law at the express will
of his parents. Headstrong, he has seen fit to leave that protection. He
is fighting now to remain away from that protection. I can presume that
James Holden would prefer to remain in the company of the Fishers where,
according to Mrs. Fisher, he was not responsible to her whatsoever, but
rather ran the show himself. I--"
"You can't make that presumption," said Judge Carter. "Strike it from the
record."
"I apologize," said Manison. "But I object to dismissing this case until
we find out just what James Holden has in mind for his future."
"I'll hold Counsel Waterman's petition in abeyance until the point you
mention is in the record," said Judge Carter. "Counsel, are you
finished?"
"Yes," said Manison. "I'll rest."
"Mr. Waterman?"
Waterman said, "Your Honor, we've been directed to show just cause why
James Holden should not be returned to the protection of his legal
guardian. Counsel has implied that James Holden desires to be placed in
the legal custody of Mr. and Mrs. Fisher. This is a pardonable error
whether it stands in the record or not. The fact is that James Holden
does not need protection, nor does he want protection. To the contrary,
James Holden petitions this Court to declare him legally competent so
that he may conduct his own affairs with the rights, privileges, and
indeed, even the _risks_ taken by the status of adult.
"I'll point out that the rules and laws that govern the control and
protection of minor children were passed by benevolent legislators to
prevent exploitation, cruelty, and deprivation of the child's life by
men who would take advantage of his immaturity. However we have here a
young man of twelve who has shown his competence to deal with the adult
world by actual practice. Therefore it is our contention that protective
laws are not only unnecessary, but undesirable because they restrict the
individual from his desire to live a full and fruitful life.
"To prove our contention beyond any doubt, I'll ask that James Holden be
sworn in as my first witness."
Frank Manison said, "I object, Your Honor. James Holden is a minor and
not qualified under law to give creditable testimony as a witness."
Waterman turned upon Manison angrily. "You really mean that you object to
my case _per se_."
"That, too," replied Manison easily.
"Your Honor, I take exception! It is my purpose to place James Holden on
the witness stand, and there to show this Court and all the world that he
is of honorable mind, properly prepared to assume the rights of an adult.
We not only propose to show that he acted honorably, we shall show that
James Holden consulted the law to be sure that whatever he did was not
illegal."
"Or," added Manison, "was it so that he would know how close to the limit
he could go without stepping over the line?"
"Your Honor," asked Waterman, "can't we have your indulgence?"
"I object! The child is a minor."
"I accept the statement!" stormed Waterman. "And I say that we intend to
prove that this minor is qualified to act as an adult."
"And," sneered Manison, "I'll guess that one of your later arguments will
be that Judge Carter, having accepted this minor as qualified to deliver
sworn testimony, has already granted the first premise of your argument."
"I say that James Holden has indeed shown his competence already by
actually doing it!"
"While hiding under a false façade!"
"A façade forced upon him by the restrictive laws that he is petitioning
the Court to set aside in his case so that he need hide no longer."
Frank Manison said, "Your Honor, how shall the case of James Holden be
determined for the next eight or ten years if we do grant James Holden
this legal right to conduct his own affairs as an adult? That we must
abridge the laws regarding compulsory education is evident. James Holden
is twelve years and five months old. Shall he be granted the right to
enter a tavern to buy a drink? Will his request for a license to marry be
honored? May he enter the polling place and cast his vote? The contention
of counsel that the creation of Charles Maxwell was a physical necessity
is acceptable. But what happens without 'Maxwell'? Must we prepare a card
of identity for James Holden, stating his legal status, and renew it
every year like an automobile license because the youth will grow in
stature, add to his weight, and ultimately grow a beard? Must we enter on
this identification card the fact that he is legally competent to sign
contracts, rent a house, write checks, and make his own decision about
the course of dangerous medical treatment--or shall we list those items
that he is not permitted to do such as drinking in a public place, cast
his vote, or marry? This State permits a youth to drive an automobile at
the age of sixteen, this act being considered a skill rather than an act
that requires judgment. Shall James Holden be permitted to drive an
automobile even though he can not reach the foot pedals from any position
where he can see through the windshield?"
Judge Carter sat quietly. He said calmly, "Let the record show that I
recognize the irregularity of this procedure and that I permit it only
because of the unique aspects of this case. Were there a Jury, I would
dismiss them until this verbal exchange of views and personalities has
subsided.
"Now," he went on, "I will not allow James Holden to take the witness
stand as a qualified witness to prove that he is a qualified witness.
I am sure that he can display his own competence with a flow of academic
brilliance, or his attorney would not have tried to place him upon the
stand where such a display could have been demonstrated. Of more
importance to the Court and to the State is an equitable disposition
of the responsibility to and over James Quincy Holden."
Judge Norman L. Carter leaned forward and looked from Frank Manison to
James Holden, and then to Attorney Waterman.
"We must face some awkward facts," he said. "If I rule that he be
returned to Mr. Brennan, he will probably remain no longer than he finds
it convenient, at which point he will behave just as if this Court had
never convened. Am I not correct, Mr. Manison?"
"Your Honor, you are correct. However, as a member of the Department of
Justice of this State, I suggest that you place the responsibility in my
hands. As an Officer of the Court, my interest would be to the best
interest of the State rather than based upon experience, choice, or
opinion as to what is better for a five-year-old or a child prodigy. In
other words, I would exert the control that the young man needed. At the
same time I would not make the mistakes that were made by Mr. Brennan's
personal opinion of how a child should be reared."