Court Opinion

ID: 9693893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:08:37.696967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:52.146184
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
by Wright, J.:
I am compelled to dissent from the majority decision. Rarely has a record come before this Court so devoid of competent material evidence. Indeed, it appears that much of the hearing was conducted in so-called off-record discussions. The translation of a letter purported to have been sent by the natural mother to her attorney has been included in the printed record, although it was not received in evidence and was, in fact, withdrawn by the natural mother’s attorney. Of greater consequence is the fact that the court admitted into evidence the translation of the ex parte report of a social worker in Munich. This practice has been condemned by this Court in Commonwealth ex rel. Mark v. Mark, 115 Pa. Superior Ct. 181, 175 A. 289. See also Commonwealth ex rel. Oncay v. Oncay, 153 Pa. Superior Ct. 569, 34 A. 2d 839, in which it was stated: -“We must point out again, however, that reports of investigators, agents, and doctors' cannot be received in evidence, or considered by the court, in a contested case.” Stripped of the letter and the report just mentioned, the record contains no evidence whatever concerning the fitness or qualifications of the mother, the suitability of the home in Germany, *377or the attitude of the mother’s present husband. It is my view that the court below did not' have before, it sufficient evidence to justify its conclusion that it was in the best interests of' this young boy to tear him from the only home he has ever known and direct that he be transported thousands of miles outside the jurisdiction and given to a mother who did not appear before the Court and who, as a practical matter, is a complete stranger in a foreign land.