Shelley's Child Custody Case
Shelley's poetic genius was not recognized during his lifetime. Nevertheless, he left behind a body of work that ultimately made his memory immortal. Other than scholars, however, few now remember the most famous child custody case of its time.
March 21, 2019 at 02:30 PM
5 minute read
Percy Bysshe Shelley, the great English romantic poet, was a litigant in a landmark child custody case. By way of background, he was a prominent radical thinker who wrote pamphlets and essays espousing atheism, non-violence, and the rejection of monarchy and marriage as an institution. None of this made him very popular with the English establishment.
He was no hypocrite in his personal life. In 1811, the 19-year-old Shelley eloped with the 16-year-old Harriet Westbrook. His father, Sir Timothy Shelley, broke off relations with his son and they never reconciled. Unfortunately, the marriage was unhappy, perhaps because poor Harriet was not his intellectual equal, or perhaps because he fell in love with Mary Godwin, daughter of his mentor. (Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley became a novelist and biographer in her own right, still famous as the author of the Gothic novel, Frankenstein). Shelley abandoned Harriet in favor of Mary, now enraging a second father, the philosopher William Godwin. Society was scandalized.
Shelley and Mary ran away to Switzerland, leaving behind Harriet who was pregnant with Shelley's son (they already had a daughter). To make things a little more interesting, Mary's stepsister, Claire, joined them. She promptly had a brief affair with Lord Byron and gave birth to a daughter. Scholars seem to believe, however, that Claire really loved Shelley, who clearly never lacked for female attention.
In December 1816, Harriet committed suicide, allegedly despondent due to her husband's affair. Shelley promptly visited Harriet's parents, the Westbrooks, to retrieve his children. He was told they were not there and, moreover, would not be returned to him. The Westbrooks detested the radical poet and held him responsible for their daughter's death. Still, their refusal must have come as a shock to Shelley. In 19th century Britain, a husband's rights, particularly if he was an aristocrat, knew few limits. For example, married women in England were not allowed to own and control property in their own right until 1882. And it was only in 1928 that women over the age of 21 were given the right to vote. Pynchon Wilmot Longdiu, Shelley's counsel, would have assured him that he could not lose custody unless he was a bankrupt or beat his children. When Westbrook filed for an injunction to prevent Shelley from reclaiming his children, the poet, doubtless on the advice of counsel, swallowed his objections to the institution of marriage and married Mary Godwin. He probably considered that he was in a strong position. Legal precedent was on his side and, through marriage, he had discarded his radical posturings for conventionality. English society was riveted by the case.
Westbrook retained the greatest advocate of his day, Sir Samuel Romilly. Romilly introduced into evidence letters that Shelley had sent to Harriet that reinforced his irregular conduct. He showed that Shelley had never visited his children after he abandoned their mother. He harped upon the poet's many heretical writings portraying him as a mad and dangerous man. Romilly was a seasoned practitioner. He also knew his judge.
Nevertheless, one suspects that Shelley would have felt fairly sanguine about his position. The right of an 18th century father to rear his own children bordered on sacrosanct. And the Westbrooks were hardly blameless. They had concealed his children from him when no one asserted he was a physical danger to them.
The Judge's decision on March 27, 1817 was a bombshell. Lord Eldon denied Shelley custody of his children, awarding them to foster parents. Lord Eldon stated:
“This is a case in which, as the matter appears to me, the father's principles cannot be misunderstood, in which his conduct, which I cannot but consider highly immoral, has been established in proof … .”
It appears Shelley was distinctly unfortunate in the Judge who heard his case. The greatest radical of his day was judged by a man who became infamous for his persecution of Catholics, and who opposed Irish emancipation, abolition of the slave trade and the death penalty. (His last public utterance in July 25, 1834 was against railroads as “dangerous innovations.”) Eldon held that a father's right to control the education of his children did not extend to teaching them what was, in the Judge's view, immorality.
Prior case law excused “immorality” so long as the parent did not directly involve or harm the children. For example, an adulterous father could retain custody of his children provided the children were not exposed to his mistresses. Lord Eldon was expanding judicial interference into a parent's right to educate his children. Now a court was allowed to evaluate a parent's “moral” views. All this was an amazing departure from precedent.
Shelley never saw his children again. He departed England for Italy and would drown a few years later in a sudden storm when his boat, the Ariel, sank off Leghorn. His poetic genius was not recognized during his lifetime. Nevertheless, he left behind a body of work that ultimately made his memory immortal. Other than scholars, however, few now remember the most famous child custody case of its time.
Timothy J. Horgan is a matrimonial attorney with offices in New York City and Garden City.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Second’ Time’s a Charm? The Second Circuit Reaffirms the Contours of the Special Interest Beneficiary Standing Rule
Attorney Fee Reimbursement for Non-Party Subpoena Recipients Under CPLR 3122(d)
6 minute readHere’s Looking at You, Starwood: A Piercing the Corporate Veil Story?
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250