In re Custody of Pearce
Pennsylvania Superior Court
456 A.2d 597 (1983)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Judith Pearce (plaintiff) was the divorced, single mother of three-year-old Tara Marie Pearce and Tara’s two older half brothers. Ernest Pearce (defendant) was Judith’s ex-husband and Tara’s father. Ernest had remarried, and he and his second wife held good jobs and were relatively prosperous. Judith, on the other hand, had lost her job and depended entirely on public assistance for her income. Nevertheless, Judith was able to provide adequate housing, clothing, and food for her family. Tara had clearly flourished in Judith’s care and wanted to go on living with Judith. When Judith needed surgery, Tara went to stay with Ernest until Judith left the hospital. However, Ernest refused to send Tara back home after Judith’s recovery. Judith petitioned a court to order Tara’s return. Instead, the court awarded Tara’s custody to Ernest. The court cited Judith’s past mental instability and inability to supervise Tara as reasons for its award, even though there was little if any evidence in the trial record that these factors had any negative impact on Tara. The court also cited Ernest’s prosperity, relative to Judith’s straitened financial circumstances, as a reason for placing Tara in Ernest’s custody. Judith appealed the trial court’s award to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rowley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
