Summary
In Commonwealth ex rel. Ackerman v. Ackerman, 204 Pa. Super. 403, 205 A.2d 49 (Super. Ct. 1964), the court inferred that religion will dominate the custody issue when there is a contractual agreement of the parents that the child be brought up as a Jew.
Summary of this case from T. v. HOpinion
November 12, 1964.
December 1, 1964.
Parent and Child — Custody of child — Unchastity of mother — Parties in pari delicto — Removal of child outside Commonwealth — Religious training of child — Oral agreement — Parol evidence.
In a child custody case, in which it appeared that relatrix, the mother, and respondent, the father, of a four-year-old boy, were divorced; that the boy was brought up Jewish until he was three and one-half years old, but after the divorce the mother abandoned the Jewish religion, to which she had become converted at or after the marriage, and reverted to Christianity, and sent the boy to a Methodist Sunday School; that the mother had been awarded custody under an order of the court below, but the father, in violation of the order, had snatched the child from her, in another state, and had brought him into the Commonwealth; that the mother had had sexual intercourse with others since the divorce, but the father had also been unchaste; and that the court below, holding that the parties were in pari delicto, that the fact that the child would be removed to a place outside the Commonwealth was not controlling, that, in the absence of a contractual agreement of the parties that the child should be brought up in a particular religion, could not be permitted to dominate custody but rather that religious affiliation should follow custody, that the parol evidence rule precluded the father from establishing an oral agreement to raise the child Jewish, since the parties had entered into a stipulation, approved by the court, granting custody to the mother, without any condition regarding the religion of the child, and that the respondent had not met the burden upon him, in the circumstances, awarded permanent custody to the mother; it was Held that the order of the court below should be affirmed.
Before ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ. (RHODES, P.J., absent).
Appeal, No. 234, April T., 1964, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, May T., 1964, No. 640, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Carol Ann Ackerman v. Harry M. Ackerman et al. Order affirmed.
Same case in court below: 34 Pa. D. C. 2d 111.
Habeas corpus for custody of child. Before SWEET, P.J.
Order entered awarding custody to relatrix, mother. Respondent, father, appealed.
David H. Weiner, with him C. Joseph Recht, for appellant.
Paul M. Petro, for appellee.
Argued November 12, 1964.
The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge CHARLES G. SWEET for the court below, reported at 34 Pa. D. C. 2d 111.