## Facts

- Judith Pearce (mother) and Ernest H. Pearce (father) married in 1973; their daughter, Tara Marie Pearce, was born in 1977.
- The parties divorced in 1977 but continued living together until March 1979; thereafter, Tara lived with Judith.
- Judith was a single mother raising Tara and Tara’s two older half-brothers; she was unemployed and relied on public assistance but provided adequate housing, clothing, and food.
- Ernest remarried; he and his second wife were employed and financially better off than Judith.
- The record showed Tara had done well in Judith’s home and had strong relationships with Judith and her half-siblings; Tara wanted to continue living with them.
- In January 1981, Judith underwent surgery. During her hospitalization and recovery, Tara stayed temporarily with Ernest.
- After Judith recovered, Ernest refused to return Tara to Judith.
- On February 23, 1981, Judith filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus; the court ordered Tara returned to Judith that same day.
- On March 9, 1981, the court entered an interim order confirming primary custody in Judith pending a full custody hearing.
- After multiple hearings (ending April 29, 1982), the trial court entered a June 14, 1982 order awarding custody of Tara to Ernest.
- The trial court relied largely on Judith’s past emotional or psychological difficulties, alleged inability to supervise Tara, and Ernest’s superior financial circumstances, despite little record evidence that Judith’s past issues or supervision concerns were harming Tara.
- Judith appealed the custody award to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that Tara’s best interests were served by awarding custody to Ernest rather than Judith, given Tara’s long-term residence with Judith and her expressed wish to remain there.
2. Whether the trial court’s findings about Judith’s mental health and supervisory ability were supported by competent evidence showing adverse impact on Tara.
3. Whether Ernest’s greater financial resources could justify transferring custody from a parent who was meeting the child’s needs and whose home was functioning well for the child.
4. Whether the trial court failed to give proper weight to Tara’s preference and her established bonds with her mother and half-siblings.

## Decision

- The Superior Court vacated the June 14, 1982 custody order.
- The case was remanded with instructions to enter an order granting custody of Tara Marie Pearce to her mother, Judith Pearce.
- The court concluded the trial court’s key adverse findings about Judith were not supported by competent evidence tied to Tara’s welfare.
- The court held that superior economic circumstances, without a showing of need or harm in the other home, did not warrant removing Tara from a stable, successful custodial arrangement with Judith.
- The court treated Tara’s stated preference to remain with Judith (and the importance of continuity with her siblings and home) as an important factor that the record supported.

## Legal Principles

- The controlling standard in custody disputes is the child’s best interests.
- Appellate review in custody matters is broad: the hearing judge’s credibility determinations receive weight, but factual findings must be supported by competent evidence.
- A parent’s past emotional or mental-health history does not justify a custody change unless the record shows present conditions affecting the child’s welfare.
- Comparative financial advantage may be considered, but it is not decisive where the other parent provides adequate care and the child is doing well.
- A child’s wishes are not controlling, but they are an important factor that must be carefully considered along with the child’s age, maturity, and reasons.
- Stability and continuity in a child’s home life and family relationships (including sibling relationships) are significant considerations, especially when the child is well adjusted.

## Conclusion

The Superior Court vacated the trial court’s award of custody to the father and directed that custody be granted to the mother because the record showed Tara was thriving in Judith’s care, wanted to remain with her mother and half-brothers, and the trial court’s reliance on Judith’s past mental-health history, alleged supervision problems, and the father’s greater wealth was not supported by competent evidence showing that Tara’s best interests required a transfer.


In re Custody of Pearce, 456 A.2d 597 (1983)