Court Opinion

ID: 9637924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:26:34.541481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:01.925960
License: Public Domain

MONTEMURO, Justice,
concurring.
Wdiile I am in full agreement with the award of custody to the mother in this case, I write separately because I do not share the Majority’s belief that the presumption of parental primacy in custody actions should be abolished. My position is based on the view that the presumption is grounded not in a possessory or proprietary interest, but rather is an outgrowth of parents’ responsibility for their children. This is the direction of the Majority in Ellerbe v. Hooks, 490 Pa. 363, 416 A.2d 512 (1980). Even with the presumption, if the facts of a particular matter clearly demonstrate that parents are failing to perform their responsibilities, or are doing so inadequately, the best interests of the child dictate placement with a third party. Thus the presumption does not “becloud the ultimate concern,” as the Majority here charges, since the problem only arises where the outcome is already in doubt, i.e., where it is not immediately apparent where the best interests of the child lie.
Moreover, there is no particular advantage in dispensing with “presumption,” a term readily understood by the bench and bar given its underpinnings, in order to replace it with a “significant factor,” which does not recognize the source and importance of the parental interest. This diminution of emphasis could well prove extremely problematical where a third party seeks custody from otherwise adequate parents based on a belief that, e.g., the children are being provided with “wrong” or inadequate religious instruction.
In short, I see no reason to alter a process which already takes into proper account both the ideal and the reality of parental behavior: it begins with the notion that parents conduct the life of the family in accordance with the best interests of their children; however, where they have been *453shown not to do so, the best interests of the children compel a change in custody.
ZAPPALA and CAPPY, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.