Appeals, Nos. 189 and 241, April T., 1963, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, July T., 1963, No. 539, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Carmen R. Tavoletti v. Mary Margaret Tavoletti. Decree affirmed.
John L. Bailey, with him Weller, Wicks and Wallace, for appellant.
Sidney J. Sable, with him Harvey Robins, and Brennan & Brennan, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
This is an appeal from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County awarding custody of two minor children, Lynn Tavoletti and Leigh Ann Tavoletti, to their father, Carmen R. Tavoletti.
The parties were married July 18, 1953 and divorced on the suit of Mary Margaret Tavoletti, the appellant,
on a charge of indignities to the person, on November 17, 1961. The children of the marriage were Lynn, born September 13, 1956, and Leigh Ann, born November 7, 1958. The husband Carmen R. Tavoletti is 34 years of age. He is a teacher of history and civics in Lincoln Junior High School, at the Chartiers Valley Joint School District and is also football and wrestling coach. He lives with his parents. Mary Margaret Tavoletti, the wife-appellant, lives in her own home with the children. She has a roomer by the name of Nancy DeFillip. She is employed as an attendant at Woodville State Hospital.
By agreement, at the time of divorce, the custody of the children was awarded to the mother, with virtually unlimited visiting privileges to the father, who took up residence with his parents a few blocks away from the present residence of the respondent, which was formerly the common domicile.
The court below, after an extended hearing, awarded the custody of the children to the father and gave custodial rights to the mother two days a week depending on her working conditions. The court further held that the matter was to be re-examined at the expiration of six months from the date of the order, for the purpose of ascertaining whether conditions at the home of the mother that affected his decision were remedied.
It is impossible to understand how this order could be interpreted as an abuse of discretion by the court below. ...