Many cases have recognized the importance of stability in a child's development and adjustment. See R.A.R. v. T.M., 434 Pa. Super. 592, 596, 644 A.2d 767, 769 (1994) ("changes in custody can seriously disrupt a child's life"); Fisher v.Fisher, 370 Pa. Super. 87, 92, 535 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1988) ("courts have long recognized the importance of a continuing and stable custodial relationship with a parent which satisfactorily serves the child's needs"); Gonzalez v.Gonzalez, 337 Pa. Super. 1, 486 A.2d 449 (1984) (in determining which placement of child would serve child's best interests, one vitally important factor to be considered is effect upon child of removal from a known physical environment with an established parental figure); English v. English, 322 Pa. Super. 234, 469 A.2d 270 (1983) (this court has noted the importance to a child's development of a stable relationship with an established parental figure and a known physical environment). In Commonwealth ex rel.Bankert v. Children's Services, 224 Pa. Super. 556, 307 A.2d 411 (1973), the court discussed this concept in depth in a case where an adoption agency sought return of a nine year old ch

¶ 2 "The role of the primary caretaker is a substantial factor which the trial judge must weigh in adjudicating a custody matter where the child is of tender years." R.A.R. v. T.M., 644 A.2d 767, 769 (Pa.Super. 1994). Here, the Appellant was the primary caretaker of the children.