I write only to mention that there are some reviewers who take this movie as criticism of former divorce laws. The law on divorce and custody at that time is very similar to the present.
One must remember that the husband played by Paul Cavanagh is the legally adoptive father of the child. the other reviewers seem to forget this! This gives him the same rights as a natural parent.
It is this fact - and that his wife wishes to move the child thousands and thousands of miles away from the father - not the fact that his wife bore the child out of wedlock or is the cause of the divorce - that would then and now persuade the court to grant the father custody of the child.
For decades in the middle of the 20th century, this presumption shifted so that mothers always gained custody of children if they sought it.
That is not the case now. There is no longer a presumption in favor of the mother - and if she wishes to make the child wholly unavailable by moving to another country - she's likely to lose custody.
A child with two parents (adoptive or natural) born and living in a foreign country is VERY unlikely to be awarded to a divorcing mother who wishes to move the child thousands of miles away - unless there is something seriously wrong with the father as a parent.
In this case, the father adores the child, treats the baby tenderly, has an enormous fortune to take care of the child, as well as his own doting parents who wish the child to remain. Finally, the child is born in the U.K.
The court would not likely prefer the mother to the father. The laws of divorce and custody are not identical now to 1931 - but in this custodial matter, they have a similar result as in 1931.
One must remember that the husband played by Paul Cavanagh is the legally adoptive father of the child. the other reviewers seem to forget this! This gives him the same rights as a natural parent.
It is this fact - and that his wife wishes to move the child thousands and thousands of miles away from the father - not the fact that his wife bore the child out of wedlock or is the cause of the divorce - that would then and now persuade the court to grant the father custody of the child.
For decades in the middle of the 20th century, this presumption shifted so that mothers always gained custody of children if they sought it.
That is not the case now. There is no longer a presumption in favor of the mother - and if she wishes to make the child wholly unavailable by moving to another country - she's likely to lose custody.
A child with two parents (adoptive or natural) born and living in a foreign country is VERY unlikely to be awarded to a divorcing mother who wishes to move the child thousands of miles away - unless there is something seriously wrong with the father as a parent.
In this case, the father adores the child, treats the baby tenderly, has an enormous fortune to take care of the child, as well as his own doting parents who wish the child to remain. Finally, the child is born in the U.K.
The court would not likely prefer the mother to the father. The laws of divorce and custody are not identical now to 1931 - but in this custodial matter, they have a similar result as in 1931.