Court Opinion

ID: 9754181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:48:05.024549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:50.331273
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell :
I agree with Justice Jones's Opinion with the following exception:
It will often be in the best interest of the child for the hearing Judge to examine the child in his chambers without the presence of the child's parents, or of the person seeking adoption or custody, or of counsel for any of the parties. The question of custody, especially if the issue is between parents and especially if the child is young, raises delicate issues which may seriously affect a child’s affection, or love and well-being for many years to come.
I disagree with the dissenting Opinion of Justice Roberts. It overlooks what other members of the Court have likewise sometimes overlooked, namely, there is a distinction between a true finding of fact— which, if supported by adequate competent evidence, especially when confirmed or approved by a Court en banc or a lower Court, will not be disturbed on appeal except for clear error—and findings which are only inferences or deductions from other facts or conclusions from facts or from reasoning.
*169An appellate Court is not bound to accept so-called findings of fact which are in reality deductions, inferences or conclusions found by the lower Court: Selheimer v. Manganese Corp., 423 Pa. 563, 581, 224 A. 2d 634; Watt Estate, 409 Pa. 44, 50, 185 A. 2d 781; Liggins Estate, 393 Pa. 500, 509, 143 A. 2d 349; Pruner Estate, 400 Pa. 629, 637, 162 A. 2d 626; Gongaware’s Estate, 265 Pa. 512, 514, 109 Atl. 276. This distinction has been overlooked by the dissenting Opinion.