From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Com. ex rel. Cleary v. Weaver

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 9, 1958
146 A.2d 374 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1958)

Opinion

November 12, 1958.

December 9, 1958.

Parent and child — Custody of children — Mother — Paternal grandmother — Circumstances.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, involving the custody of a child nine years of age, as between its mother, who had remarried, and its paternal grandmother, with whom the child had lived since it was three years old, in which it appeared that the court below entered an order directing that custody of the child should remain with its grandmother, subject to the right of the mother to custody of the child during certain vacation periods, it was Held that the order of the court below should be affirmed.

Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ. (WRIGHT and WOODSIDE, JJ., absent).

Appeal, No. 91, Oct. T., 1958, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County, Oct. T., 1957, No. 2, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Mrs. Marjorie L. Cleary et al. v. Frances E. Weaver. Order affirmed.

Same case in court below: 14 Pa. D. C. 2d 715.

Habeas corpus for custody of minor child. Before LIPEZ, P.J.

Order entered refusing petition of mother of child and directing that custody remain in paternal grandmother. Petitioner appealed.

Morton Fromm, for appellant.

James T. Smith, for appellee.


Argued November 12, 1958.


The order of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge LIPEZ of the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County, as reported in 14 Pa. D. C. 2d 715.


Summaries of

Com. ex rel. Cleary v. Weaver

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 9, 1958
146 A.2d 374 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1958)
Case details for

Com. ex rel. Cleary v. Weaver

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth ex rel. Cleary, Appellant, v. Weaver

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 9, 1958

Citations

146 A.2d 374 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1958)
146 A.2d 374

Citing Cases

Zaubi v. Hoejme

In evaluating the best interest of the child, the child is not considered chattel; and for this reason…

Com. ex rel. Willouer v. Willouer et al

Com. ex rel. Schofield v. Schofield, 173 Pa. Super. 631, 98 A.2d 437 (1953). For situations where we have…