# Brooks v. Brooks

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 16, 1983 · 319 Pa. Super. 268

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702969

## Case

- **Full name:** Donald C. BROOKS v. Clelia BROOKS, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 16, 1983
- **Citations:** 319 Pa. Super. 268; 466 A.2d 152; 1983 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3920
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rowley
- **Judges:** Rowley, Wieand, Cirillo
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702969

## Opinion text

ROWLEY, Judge,
concurring:
I join in the order of the court and almost all of the opinion filed with the order.
I do not join, however, in that portion of the opinion on pages 274 and 275 dealing with this Court’s scope of review *282 in child custody cases. That precise issue is presently pending before an en banc panel of this Court. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth ex rel. Davenport v. Montgomery County Children and Youth Services, 501 Pa. 472 , 462 A.2d 221 (1983), stated that while our review is to be of the broadest type we are bound by the trial court’s findings of fact concerning “the parties emotional feelings and attitudes towards one another.” Given this most recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court, it is my understanding that we are not to substitute our “independent judgment” for that of the trial court in such matters. To do so would render the trial courts little more than masters in custody cases. Since I am of the opinion that appellate judges are no better equipped to decide such delicate issues than are the trial judges of the Commonwealth, I do not agree that appellate review should be replaced by a re-trial of the case.
Since the record in this case contains evidence supporting the trial court’s findings concerning the emotional well-being of the children, I agree that the order should be affirmed.
WIEAND, J., joins in this concurring statement.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702969. Public record. Not legal advice.