The opinion
Price. J.,
dissenting: I am unable to agree to the disposition made of this case. In a matter of this kind the determination of *12 what is for the welfare and best interests of a child naturally covers a wide scope of inquiry. It is quite true that considerable evidence concerning the matter of religion was introduced, and also it is true that the subject was mentioned in the trial court’s findings and conclusions. I am in accord with what was held in Denton v. James, 107 Kan. 729 , 193 Pac. 307 , 12 A. L. R. 1146, to the effect that in a dispute relating to custody religious views afford no ground for depriving a parent of custody who is otherwise qualified, but I think it may not be said that here the trial court’s decision was based solely on the ground of religion. In fact, conclusions 1 and 2 make it clear that it was not. If a divorced parent’s extreme religious views and activities are such rs to result in emotional instability in such parent, then most certainly I feel that a trial court has not only the right, but the duty,' to take such fact into consideration in the determination of what appears to be the welfare and best interests of the child and to which parent custody should be granted. As I read this record, that, in reality, was what was done in this case. Custody matters always are difficult for trial courts. After a full-scale hearing a custody order was entered. I see nothing erroneous about it or anything that savors of an abuse of discretion. I would affirm the judgment.
Wertz, J., concurs with the foregoing dissent.