It appears from the mother’s affidavit that she and her daughter left their home here in July, 1921, and since that time have been and are now residents of the State of New York. We think no good purpose would be served in reviewing the *82 facts as averred in the various affidavits. Suffice it to say, the plaintiff, who has recently remarried, appears to be a good mother, and we are convinced that June needs her care and influence.

The trial court, in modifying the decree, undoubtedly, was endeavoring to carry out an alleged agreement of the parents concerning the disposition of this girl, but we think such contracts should not take precedence over her welfare. They may be persuasive on the court, but certainly are not controlling. Parents cannot stipulate away the interests of a child, who, indeed, is the innocent victim of their marital troubles.

In divorce proceedings minor children are wards of the court. In our opinion it was error so to modify the decree. It is not necessary to consider the extraterritorial effect of such decrees, but attention is called to the holding of this court in Griffin v. Griffin, 95 Or. 78 (187 Pac. 598). Under the decree as modified, defendant’s right to the custody of the child terminated September 1, 1925. It is now a moot question: State ex rel. v. Webster, 58 Or. 376 (114 Pac. 932).

The order modifying the original decree is reversed and plaintiff will recover costs and disbursements. Reversed.