(concurring). I have a strong conviction that the very young child here involved would be much better off with her natural mother than she is under the present arrangement. Even so I am persuaded to concur in the opinion of the court because of (1) the mother’s clear failure to show a change in the circumstances of the parties since custody was last adjudicated; (2) a realization that the trial judge has advantages over a judge of a reviewing court in *60evaluating a parent’s fitness for custody; and (3) the fact that custody of the child is still under the control of the court.
If the mother should re-establish a residence in South Dakota, or if conditions should develop in the present home that are detrimental to the child, or if any other real change in circumstances should occur there will likely be a full reconsideration of the custody question. In such event the re-adjudication may be free of all procedural and other subordinate questions and with certainty be based on the paramount issue of the child’s welfare.