Court Opinion

ID: 9541670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:27:37.474099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:21.553121
License: Public Domain

*19Dissenting Opinion by
Price, J.:
This custody case involving the parties’ young son, Jeffrey, 6% years old, presents, like all other matters involving young children, a heart-rending and difficult choice. The courts attempt to solve these disputes where the parties cannot through time-tested and well-established doctrines of law and, although I must disagree with the majority’s conclusion, I do not disagree with the principles that are cited therein. It is in the application and weight to be given these principles, under the facts and circumstances herein presented, that I depart from the holding of the majority.
The factual narrative in the majority opinion is accurate, and I agree that there is no desire to castigate or characterize either of the parties in their efforts to gain custody of this child. I accept the efforts on behalf of both parties as motivated by a bona fide interest and love of the son involved.
Nevertheless, I believe that the majority opinion places too much emphasis on the application of the tender years doctrine, and I would conclude that the child’s intellectual, spiritual and emotional well-being in this instance outweighs the tender years doctrine and requires an affirmance of the lower court’s decision. This is particularly so if you accept the tender years doctrine to be merely a vehicle through which a decision respecting a child’s custodial well-being may be reached where factual considerations do not otherwise dictate a different result. I agree with the lower court that in the present case Jeffrey’s well-being and best interests dictate custody in the father.
I am also concerned and give consideration to the fact that two very able judges have considered the problem herein presented and both have reached the same conclusion, that is, that the best interests of this child are served by awarding custody to the father. It is certainly true, as recognized by the lower court and by *20tie majority opinion, that we are not bound by tie decision of our sister state, Florida; but I do not think it appropriate to ignore tie effort and consideration given to this custody matter by tie Florida court. I am also very much impressed by tie very thorough and comprehensive hearing conducted by tie lower court here and tie very able and well-reasoned opinion rendered by tie lower court.
While it is our duty to examine tie evidence in custody cases, we are not free to nullify tie fact-finding function of tie hearing judge, who can best determine tie credibility and tie weight to be given to tie testimony of tie witnesses who appear before him.
Taken as a whole, this very adequate record and able consideration by tie lower court is more than sufficient, in my view, to support tie lower court’s ruling. The burden is upon tie appellant, in this case tie mother, to establish that tie order of tie lower court is erroneous, or it is based upon error of law, and I am satisfied that this burden has not been met.
I further believe that tie majority opinion uses tie sword of Solomon to further divide an already torn family. It has long been recognized as a policy in tie law of tie Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that it is desirable to keep brothers and sisters together and, although it standing alone may not necessarily be determinative, it is an important factor in this case that consideration should be given to tie raising of Jeffrey, tie child herein involved, with his sister, Christine, who is 2y2 years older and remains in tie custody of tie father.
For these reasons, I would affirm tie order of tie lower court.
Spaeth, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.