Court Opinion

ID: 9712337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:51:49.148191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:11.596150
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Spaulding, J.:
I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion asserts two grounds for affirming the denial of visitation rights to appellant: (1) the petition for visitation was brought for the purposes of harassment, and (2) appellant neglected or refused to provide support for his children when able to do so.
No authority is cited for the proposition that a visitation petition may be denied if brought for the purpose of harassment. However, even if this is the law, there is no justification for its application in the present case. There is no indication in the testimony before us or in an opinion of the lower court that this was the motive for bringing the petition or a consideration in its denial below. Consequently, denial of the petition cannot properly be founded on this ground.
Insofar as the majority’s decision rests upon appellant’s failure to support the children it disregards the numerous cases holding that failure to support *380is not a ground for denial of visitation. Commonwealth ex rel. Lotz v. Lotz, 188 Pa. Superior Ct. 241, 146 A. 2d 362 (1958); Guiseppi Appeal, 188 Pa. Superior Ct. 232, 146 A. 2d 365 (1958); Commonwealth ex rel. Heller v. Yellin, 174 Pa. Superior Ct. 292, 101 A. 2d 452 (1953); Leonard v. Leonard, 173 Pa. Superior Ct. 424, 98. A. 2d 638 (1953).
The standard for determining visitation is of course the welfare of the child. Visitation may be denied if a parent has mental or moral deficiencies such that visitation would threaten the welfare of the child. Guiseppi Appeal, supra. However, the mere fact that a father has failed to pay a court order for support does not indicate that his character is such that his child’s welfare will be impaired by exposure to him during the visitation.
Furthermore, although the majority cites “harassment” as a basis for denying visitation, it fails to recognize the potential for harassment created by this decision. Children often become pawns in the vengeful maneuvering engaged in by embittered parents. Permitting denial of visitation for failure to support can only encourage contentious parents to seek to deny visitation for harassment purposes.
The Court’s error is compounded by the suggestion that appellant will be entitled to visitation only “when he is' able to demonstrate his ability and willingness to support his children.” (Emphasis added.) This statement clearly indicates that visitation is being denied not because of appellant’s character or to protect his children’s welfare but as punishment for his failure to pay support. Moreover, to the extent that appellant’s future right to visitation rests upon his ability to support, the best interests of the children have been clearly disregarded. While a consideration in' custody matters, a father’s wealth or lack of wealth is irrelevant where visitation is concerned. Basing *381visitation upon a parent’s financial position is not only discriminatory but may deny children the beneficial contact with the parent.
I would remand the record to the court below with directions to fix reasonable visitation periods.
Hoffman, J., joins in this dissent.