Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, H. C. Docket No. 8, Page 184, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Pamela K. Ulmer v. Robert E. Ulmer.
John Milton Ranck, for appellant.
John F. Pyfer, Jr., with him Xakellis, Perezous & Mongiovi, for appellee.
Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ. Opinion by Price, J. Jacobs and Van der Voort, JJ., would affirm the order of the court below.
[ 231 Pa. Super. Page 145]
The parties, Appellant, Robert E. Ulmer and Appellee, Pamela K. Ulmer, both 27 years of age, were married on September 1, 1967. Of this union there were two children born, Kelley K. Ulmer, born December 14, 1968 and Robin A. Ulmer, born April 17, 1972.
On March 14, 1974 appellee left the domicile of the appellant, left the children with appellant, and moved into a home occupied by her parents and family. On April 5, 1974 appellee instituted this action for custody of these children. The lower court awarded custody to appellee-mother and appellant-father has filed this appeal.
Appellee states the question involved to be: "Whether the evidence as a whole in this case supports the conclusion that the interests and welfare of two very young daughters, ages 2 and 5, demand that custody be granted to their mother, the Appellee herein."
[ 231 Pa. Super. Page 146]
We agree with this statement of the question, but unfortunately are unable to determine how, if indeed it was, this question was answered by the lower court.
At the conclusion of a one day hearing on April 17, 1974, the court by Order,*fn1 less than two pages in length, made its determination.
This order ". . . determines that by reason of the ages of these children the law presumes that the mother is better qualified to raise children of tender ages and that no testimony has been presented as to her unfitness to be a mother and to raise these children. . . ." This is not a complete and, therefore, not a correct statement of the law. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth ex rel. Parikh v. Parikh, 449 Pa. ...