Opinion
September 16, 1971.
November 11, 1971.
Parent and child — Custody of children — Visitation privileges of father — Posting of bond as precondition — Amount of bond — Appellate review.
The court below entered an order requiring a father to post a bond of $5,000 as a precondition to his being granted extensive visitation privileges with his daughter. In its opinion written prior to the decision of the Superior Court on the original appeal, the lower court specifically stated that it had overlooked the fact that the amount of the bond would be a small price to pay for possession of the child and that, if its order was allowed to stand, it would substantially increase the amount of the bond. After the appellate court affirmed per curiam the original order of the lower court, that court issued an order requiring the father to post a $35,000 bond.
It was Held that the per curiam order of the Superior Court on the original appeal was not intended to fix the amount of the bond at $5,000. The order of the lower court was modified so that the bond posted should be in the amount of $15,000.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, and CERCONE, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 1033 and 1123, Oct. T., 1971, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, No. 4389 of 1970, in case of Myriam Pesquera deNunez v. Jorge A. Nunez. Order modified.
Proceedings upon petition for custody of minor.
Order entered requiring father to post bond as precondition to grant of visitation privileges, opinion by DIGGINS, P.J. Plaintiff and defendant, respectively, appealed.
William F. Sullivan, Jr., with him Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell Hippel, for appellant. Franklin J. Seyfert, with him D. Michael Emuryan, and Seyfert Emuryan, for appellee.
WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS and JACOBS, JJ., would affirm on the opinion of the court below.
Argued September 16, 1971.
This is an appeal by a father from an order of the lower court requiring him to post a $35,000 bond as a pre-condition to his being granted extensive visitation privileges with his daughter.
This order by the lower court was issued five days after our Court affirmed per curiam the original order of the lower court requiring that bond be set in the amount of $5,000. Appellant argues that the lower court was bound by our per curiam order and could not thereafter raise the amount of the bond originally fixed.
Our per curiam order, however, was not intended to fix the amount of the bond at $5,000. Indeed, the lower court in its opinion written prior to our deciding the original appeal specifically stated "[o]ne place we slipped. In fixing the bond as a guarantee for the safe return of the child from vacation with his father at Five Thousand ($5,000) Dollars, we completely overlooked the fact that this amount of bond would be a small price to pay for possession of this child. As a consequence, if our Order is allowed to stand, we will substantially increase the amount of the bond."
After a careful review of the record in light of the principles set forth in Commonwealth ex rel. Balla v. Wreski, 165 Pa. Super. 6, 67 A.2d 595 (1949) and Commonwealth ex rel. Keller v. Keller, 90 Pa. Super. 357 (1927) we believe that a bond of $15,000 is sufficient to assure the father's return of the child.
The order of the lower court is modified so that bond posted shall be in the amount of $15,000.
WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS and JACOBS, JJ., would affirm on the opinion of the court below.