The Kidnapping of the Kerr Children: A Seattle Scandal of Custody and Class
In July 1888, Chief Justice Jones presided over a dramatic habeas corpus hearing regarding two young girls seized from an orphanage by their father and his new lover, sparking a public debate over morality, custody rights, and the fate of vulnerable children.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
THE KERR CHILDREN.
The habeas corpus proceedings regarding the Kerr children were heard by Chief Justice Jones in chambers yesterday, and occupied the whole of the day. The court reserved his decision for next Monday.
During the progress of the trial, the younger child, aged about three years, sat on its mother's lap the most of the time and prattled away, all unconscious of the serious nature of the proceedings in progress. Occasionally she spent a few minutes on Thorndyke's knee and pulled the latter's mustache. The other girl, a pretty child of about five years, divided her time between Mrs. H. Ainsley and Mrs. McGee, matron of the Orphans' Home. Both of the children are bright, nice-appearing girls.
Mrs. McGee was the first witness. She testified to Kerr's taking the children to the home in January, 1887. When he asked the authorities of the Home to take the children, he said his wife was ill and he was unable to provide for them; but when he took them to the institution a few days later his wife accompanied him, and was evidently a stout, healthy woman.
Kerr went to the Home and requested Mrs. McGee not to let his wife visit the children, as "he had not been true to him and was an immoral woman." She told him that she could not prevent his wife visiting the children, as she was their mother. Later, he obtained a divorce and was awarded the custody of the children, and he then again made a request that his wife be not allowed to visit them. He agreed to pay $20 a month for their maintenance at the home, and now owes a balance of about $50.
Mrs. Kerr, later known as Pearl Winter, and for the present month E. A. Thorndyke's wife, was then accused by the bookkeeper of the Home of attempting to bribe the matron.
When she visited the Home, at the time of the funeral of the youngest child, she and Thorndyke were present and she introduced the latter to Mr. Smith. Thorndyke called alone a few days before the child was kidnapped and offered her $100 to let him take the little girl away. She told him that it was against the rules of the institution to let any of the children be taken away without an order from the president. The day that he and Kerr took the child away by force, the former offered her a handful of silver to let the child go without making any trouble and she refused.
Mrs. McGee testified further that she had pleaded with the mother of the children to reform her ways for the sake of the little ones. Her testimony relative to the kidnapping was substantially as previously printed in the Post-Intelligencer.
Mrs. John, the president of the Women Relief Society, testified to the reception of the children at the Home eighteen months ago. She said it was against the rules to let any of the children be taken away except upon an order, and no order had been given in this case.
This 1888 custody battle reads like a modern high-stakes family law drama, highlighting how the legal system's protection of 'morality' often clashed with parental rights. The public fascination with the 'immoral' mother and the father's use of an orphanage as a bargaining chip mirrors contemporary debates over child welfare systems and the commodification of custody in Seattle's history.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.