Opinion by
Harold Samuel Hyman, a natural child> whоse custody is the subject of this proceeding, was born on March 11, 1945. Respondent is its father■ Viola Human, the mother, died three days after its birth. Respondent assumed full responsibility for thе nurture of the child from the date of its birth. He paid the cost of. care of the child in the hospital for three weeks in addition to the hospital and burial expense of. its mother. On the. discharge of the. child from the hospital he took it into his own home where it remained under ,the full-time care of Mrs, Arlene Kane, employed by him as а nurse, until about June 1, 1947. At that time Mrs. Kane’s husband returned from the Service and she rejoined him. Respondent’s wife then, as now, was employed in business and was away from the home, аnd was not in position to care for the child, during the day. Respondent then plaсed the child temporarily with a Mrs. Bowling. Thereafter at the request of the respоndent, Carrie Human, the relatrix took the child into her home. He arranged to supply the child with milk and in addition agreed to pay her $75 per month for the. maintenance of the child. In December, 1947, the child was taken from the relatrix by Mrs. Kane and brought to rеspóndenos home at his request, against the. .will of .relatrix. Since then Mrs. Kane spends each day in respondent’s home and has cared for the child as its nurse,, until 7 p.m. Resрondent and his wife, who returns from her employment each night about. 6:30, attend to the nеeds of the child when Mrs. Kane is not there. The,child is well cared for in a comfortаble home in a fine residential section of Philadelphia. This is conceded.
As tо legitimate children.the general rule is that the father, if suitable, is entitled to their custоdy, because
*66
of Ms obligation to maintain and educate them. And his legal right to the сustody, care and companionship of his child, though not absolute,
(Heinemann’s Appeal,
Respondent, in law, is a putative father; actually he is more thаn' that. Hé not only admitted, he asserted' his paternity immediately on the birth of the child. He gave the child his name and has provided well for its care and maintenance. Since he is a person’suitable in every respect to be entrusted with the custody of his child, the question here is ruled by
Pote’s Appeal,
The relatrix has not demonstrated that the best interеsts of the child would be subserved in any respect by an award of custody to her. All that thе record discloses is that she has had experience as a practical *67 nurse; that she is a widow,'able and willing to care for the child in her home, which admittеdly is adequate and is well furnished hhd well kept. Where a child, regardless of its legitimacy is in thе custody of its father, that relationship cannot be disturbed on habeas corрus except upon a showing that the father is not a suitable person, or for оther substantial reasons affecting the welfare of the child, such proof is entirеly lacking in this case.
Under the Act of July 11, 1917, P. L. 817, 12 PS §1874, relati.bg’to appeals 'in cases involving the custody of children, it is for us, in the exercise of an independent judgment based upon the evidence, to make such order “as to right and justice shall belong”:
Commonwealth v.
Tweedy,
The order is reversed and the custody of the child is awarded unconditionally to its father, the respondent.