Court Opinion

ID: 9648182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:07:55.885481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:57.051367
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
by Mr. Justice Cohen:
The majority opinion, in heartrending allegory, has affirmed a custody order delivered by a court which never should have heard the case, having already prejudiced the matter before the parties had had their second day in court. This unhappy matter came before the courts of this Commonwealth for the first time when the present appellees petitioned the County Court *9of Philadelphia for adoption of one Robert Gunther. The county court, having found that the child was abandoned by his mother (the present appellant) and that his welfare would be promoted by an adoption, granted the adoption petition. This Court, in an opinion by Justice Jones, found no abandonment and vacated the decree of adoption, remanding the case for a determination of custody with the observation that: “The court below, understandingly, placed great stress upon its finding that the best interests of the child would be promoted by this adoption. The question of the best interests of a child is all important in custody cases, but, in adoption, the welfare of the child is to be considered only after it has been determined that the natural parent has abandoned the child . . . .” Gunther Adoption Case, 416 Pa. 237, 241-242, 206 A. 2d 61, 64 (1965).
I submit that on the face of the decree of adoption, the judge below had decided the issue of the best interests and welfare of the child, which this Court admits is “all important in custody cases . . .,” well before the parties came before her for the second time in this custody proceeding. I believe that the trial judge should have recognized this fact and disqualified herself from hearing the case.
Accordingly, I would vacate the order of the lower court and remand the case with instructions that another judge of the bench of the County Court of Philadelphia, who has not previously disposed of the cardinal issue, determine the custody of this child. .
I dissent.
Mr. Justice Jones joins in this dissenting opinion.