Dissenting Opinion by
Wright, P. J.:I respectfully dissent.
*277In Commonwealth ex rel. Golembewski v. Stanley, 205 Pa. Superior Ct. 101, 208 A. 2d 49, in an opinion by the writer, the majority of our court as then constituted held that, as a matter of law, a putative father was not entitled to limited custody of an illegitimate child. It was our view that the best interest and permanent welfare of an illegitimate child dictated that all contact between it and the putative father should be terminated. However, the Golembewski case was overruled by a majority of our court as subsequently constituted in Gwiszcz Appeal, 206 Pa. Superior Ct. 397, 213 A. 2d 155. That case extends the right of custody to include the putative father even as against the natural mother. Judge Diggins was therefore warranted, if the circumstances indicated, in awarding custody to the putative father and his parents. I agree with him that the circumstances disclosed by the instant record did so indicate.
Judge Diggins is an able and experienced jurist. He found on ample evidence that the natural mother was “irresponsible and without moral character”. The Act of 1917, cited by the majority, “was never intended to mean that an appellate court is free to nullify the fact-finding function of the hearing judge”: Commonwealth ex rel. Harry v. Eastridge, 374 Pa. 172, 97 A. 2d 350. As the majority concedes, the paramount concern in custody cases is the welfare of the child. The well-reasoned opinion of Judge Diggins convincingly demonstrates that the custody he decreed was “in the best interest of the child (present and future) and will enhance his physical, intellectual, moral, spiritual and emotional well being”. I would affirm his order.
Watkins and Montgomery, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.