## Facts

- Can-ah-couqua, an Alaska Native mother, sought a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of her minor son, Can-ca-dach.
- In May 1883, when the child was about five, the mother voluntarily placed him with the superintendent of a Presbyterian mission school in Sitka for a five-year term to receive an English-language education.
- The child remained at the school for approximately three years, during which the school provided food, clothing, shelter, and instruction.
- The mother later demanded the child’s return before the five-year term expired; the superintendent refused, citing the original arrangement.
- The habeas petition alleged the child was unlawfully restrained; the return admitted custody but asserted it was lawful under the 1883 agreement.
- Evidence showed the child wished to return to his mother, but the school asserted continued custody was educationally beneficial.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1884 Alaska Organic Act’s adoption of Oregon law applied retrospectively to affect a pre-1884 custody arrangement.
2. Whether a parent who surrendered a child’s custody under a parol agreement and long acquiesced could reclaim the child by habeas corpus as of right, absent proof of breach or custodial neglect.
3. How to weigh the child’s stated preference against the court’s determination of the child’s best interests.

## Decision

- The court denied the writ and refused to restore the child to his mother before the five-year term ended.
- The court held the Alaska Organic Act’s adoption of Oregon law did not apply retrospectively to alter the 1883 arrangement.
- The court held the mother’s long acquiescence in the parol custody surrender barred recovery on habeas corpus “as of course” without proof of breach of the agreement or neglect of duties relating to the child’s care, education, or moral training.
- The court found the child was being properly cared for and educated at the school and concluded it was in the child’s best interests to remain there.
- The court ordered that the mother be allowed to visit the child at the mission under school supervision.

## Legal Principles

- A statute adopting another jurisdiction’s laws will not be given retroactive effect absent clear indication of legislative intent.
- A parent who voluntarily surrenders custody by parol agreement and permits a placement to continue for a substantial period cannot use habeas corpus to rescind the arrangement as a matter of course without showing breach by custodians or neglect of the child’s care, education, or moral training.
- In custody disputes presented through habeas corpus, the controlling consideration is the best interests of the child.
- The child’s wishes may be considered but are not controlling.

## Conclusion

The court treated the pre-Organic Act custody surrender as legally effective, required a showing of custodial breach or neglect to disturb a long-acquiesced placement, and—applying a best-interests analysis—kept the child in the mission school while permitting supervised maternal visits.


In re Can-ah-couqua, 29 F. 687 (D. Alaska 1887)