(dissenting):
Adultery may be proved by circumstantial evidence; however, it must be by a clear preponderance of the evidence. Odom v. Odom, 248 S. C. 144, 149 S. E. (2d) 353 (1966). In the case at bar, there is no evidence of adultery while the parties were living together. The scant evidence of adultery after separation are observations that appellant and another were at an apartment, and testimony that appellant was seen several times in local nightclubs. Such evidence falls far short of meeting the clear and convincing standard to prove adultery.
Assuming the evidence supported adultery, it was error to award custody to respondent based on this singular finding. “The morality of a parent is a proper factor for consideration but is limited in its force to what relevancy it has, either directly or indirectly, to the welfare of the child.” Davenport v. Davenport, 265 S. C. 524, 527, 220 S. E. (2d) 228, 230 (1975). The welfare of the child was not considered here, and there is no evidence that appellant’s alleged adultery had any adverse effect on the child.
*484In fact, the record shows appellant was an excellent parent. Appellant was the primary provider and nurturer for the child while respondent was in school for several years. It is evident respondent took little interest in the child prior to this decree. Absent the unsupported finding of adultery, there is no contention that she was not a good mother. Futhermore, appellant had responsibility for the child until the date of this decree.
I would reverse the grant of a divorce based on adultery, and would remand for a proper determination of the custody issue.