This is аn appeal by a mother from an order awarding custody of a now ten year old boy, Claire, Jr., to his father.
-1-
The mother first contends that the “tender years presumption” should control the disposition of this case. This contention ignores the well-settled principle that the
*171
paramount concern in a custody dispute between parents is the bеst interest of the child.
Commonwealth ex rel. Parikh v. Parikh,
*172 -2-
The mother next contends that the hearing judge did not properly evаluate the evidence.
“ ‘Under both the statutory and case law, the scope of review in child custody cases is quite broad and, while we cannot nullify the fact-finding function of thе hearing judge, we are not bound by a finding which has no competent evidence to support it.’ ”
Commonwealth ex rel. Grillo
v.
Shuster, supra,
The father and mother are Claire and Edna Tobias. They were married in December, 1965, separated in February, 1971, and divorced in November, 1972. Their only child, Claire, Jr., was born on August 1, 1966. The mother has three sons, triplets, from a рrevious marriage. Upon separation, she retained custody of the triplets and of Claire, Jr. However, in June, 1975, Claire, Jr., was visiting the father, and the father refused to return him to his mothеr. The father is now re-married, and his new wife, Arlene, has an eleven year old daughter by a previous marriage.
In his opinion, the hearing judge quite impartially recapitulated the testimony as follows. The mother testified that after separation the father only came to visit the children *173 when she called him to do so, and that the only condition she plаced on these visits was that the father should not take the children to Arlene’s house. The father testified that he visited the children whenever he could, about once every six wеeks, but that his efforts were obstructed because he did not have the mother’s unlisted telephone number, and also because she placed many limitations on his visitation rights. The mother did not contend that the father was not a fit parent. He, however, contended that she neglected Claire, Jr., was emotionally unstable, frequented bars, and generally was out of the house a lot. The mother admitted that she had been treated at a Mental Health Clinic, and was taking nerve pills and seeing a doctor for “weight and nerve” prоblems, but she stated that she went to bars only once or twice a month, and she denied that she neglected her children. The father testified that when he first obtained custody of Clairе, Jr., the child was underweight and nervous, and that Claire, Jr. has consistently expressed his desire to stay with his father. Arlene testified that the mother had once called her to ask her to take care of the children because she couldn’t “stand” them at the time, and stated that her doctor had suggested that she place the children in a foster home until her nervous condition improved. The mother denied any such conversation. Arlene also testified that Claire, Jr., had told her that he wanted to stay with his father and had expressed feаr of his mother.
The hearing judge interviewed Claire, Jr., in chambers. He properly allowed counsel to be present, and had the proceedings transcribed.
Snellgrose Adoption
Case,
The mother contends that the judge relied too heavily upon Claire, Jr.’s stated preference to live with his father, and placеd too little emphasis on the policy that it is preferable for siblings to be raised together. However, while influenced by the child’s preference, the judge properly considered it only one of the factors necessary to determine best interest. See In re Russo, supra; Carlisle Appeal, supra. The same was true of the policy of raising siblings together; the court recognized the pоlicy, and Claire, Jr.’s, affection for his brothers, but concluded that his best interest would be met by living with his father, with frequent visits with his siblings.
The hearing judge summarized his findings as follows:
In the instant case, Junior has expressed a very decided preferenсe to live with his father. He is devoted to him and they have established a fine rapport with each other. Arlene impresses us as a wholesome person who in raising her own dаughter, two years older than Junior, has come to know the needs of growing children and fulfills them. She has demonstrated an understanding, concern and affection for him and he has reсiprocated. It is a well rounded and well adjusted family, consisting of father, mother, and sibling figures, spending their evenings together, sharing their recreation and otherwise looking after аnd supporting each other. This is in marked contrast to the alternative presented — the home of a mother who is mentally and nervously distraught, whose lack of insight and whose concern for her own personal life have resulted in the neglect and important physical and emotional needs of her boy and whose emotional imbalance аffects and infects her children.
We are convinced that Junior’s remaining with his father will better serve to establish his stability and *175 security and better promote his physical, mental and morаl welfare.
Lower court opinion at 7.
There are facts in the record that the hearing judge does not comment upon, for example, the means by which the father first obtained custody, the fact thаt the father’s house only has two bedrooms, and the fact that despite the father’s statement that he wants to get a bigger house, the record does not establish his financial аbility to purchase one. Also there are statements by the judge at the hearing that perhaps not everyone would agree with — such as his comment that although he commеnds the mother for seeking psychological help, her doing so must necessarily affect the child, and his statement, “I’m sorry for the boy who doesn’t have a man in his home . . . ” Nevertheless the judge saw the witnesses and was in a better position than we are to determine what was in Claire, Jr.’s, best interest. When a hearing judge has been careful and thorough, and has properly applied the law, we must defer to his conclusions. Thus in
Carlisle Appeal, supra,
We have carefully reviewed the facts in this record and are satisfied that the decision of the court below was based on the sober judgment that the best interests of these children were served by remaining with their father; and that in deciding this, the established custody guides of fitness of the parties, prеference of the minors, the children of tender years policy and the policy of keeping the family together, were all carefully weighed and balanced agаinst the paramount question of the welfare of the children.
Affirmed.
Notes
. In
Commonwealth ex rel. Spriggs v. Carson, supra,
a plurality of the Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the “tender years presumption” is “offensive tо the concept of the equality of the sexes which we have embraced as a constitutional principle within this jurisdiction. See Pa. Const., art. I, (1974);
Conway v. Dana,