Appeal, No. 174, Oct. T., 1959, from order of Municipal Court of Philadelphia County, Domestic Relations Division, No. D.R. 210132, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Maurice Skyanier v. Lois Skyanier. Order affirmed.
I. Finkelstein, for appellant.
Samuel C. Tabbey, with him Bernard L. Lemisch, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 190 Pa. Super. Page 57]
This appeal is from an order of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, allowing visitation to Maurice Skyanier, father of a five year old daughter.
Maurice Skyanier and Lois Skyanier were married on December 22, 1951, and their daughter Cynthia was born on October 11, 1953. The parents were separated sometime in October 1958, and the wife and child went to live with the maternal grandparents, where they reside at the present time. On November 25, 1958, the father filed a petition for visitation, averring that he had made every effort to see his daughter, but that the mother refused him permission. The lower court, on January 21, 1958, made an order allowing the father to have the child from Friday to Sunday every weekend. The court was of the opinion that the best interest of the child will be served by maintaining a close relationship with both parents.
Has the lower court abused its discretion by making an order allowing the natural father the right of visitation and partial custody of his minor child on each weekend from 4:00 P.M. Friday, to 4:00 P.M. Sunday?
The record discloses that on December 8, 1958, counsel for the respondent stated to Judge KALLICK as follows: "If there can be no reconciliation then I say to you, sir, it is Mrs. Skyanier's position that she wants her daughter to know her father and, as far as possible, to have a normal relationship, as normal as possible with a broken home. Also, the young lady is 5 years of age. I have no objection to the husband seeing his daughter whenever he wants and without limitations."
[ 190 Pa. Super. Page 58]
Both the petitioner and respondent live in the city of Philadelphia. The petitioner seeks custody of the child on weekends to take her to his home, where he is living with his parents. To this arrangement the respondent objects because she blames the petitioner's parents for breaking up her marriage. She contends that her in-laws have a very undesirable effect on her daughter, causing her to become discontented and irritable. Arthur Kahn, father of the respondent, corroborated his daughter's testimony concerning the condition of his granddaughter, when she returns from the weekend visits to the home of the paternal grandparents.
The paternal grandparents and a great aunt testified that they loved the child very much, and denied saying anything to the child concerning ...