tion proceedings or otherwise attempted to regain custody of her child except for the pressure applied by her mother, Mary Ann Brown.
- From the testimony and personal observations of Mary Ann Brown, the Court is of the opinion that she manifests substantial instability and is unable to cope with her past and present problems and would be unable to provide proper care for the child.
- It would not be for the best interest of the child that it be raised in a family consisting of an unstable grandmother with marital problems, an immature fourteen year old mother, a thirteen year old uncle subject to epileptic seizures, an eleven year old aunt who is failing in school, and a nine year old aunt with cerebral palsy, all living in a mobile home and supported by Arkansas Social Services.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds that the petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus should be denied and is hereby denied and custody of Patrick Daniel Schneck is confirmed in the Arkansas Social Services."
From the record before us we are unable to say that the chancellor's findings and order are against the preponderance of the evidence in this case. In the appellants' brief their attorney argues that the basic problem of the family is poverty and we are urged to grant the petition for habeas corpus on trial de novo. He argues as follows:
"Habeas Corpus should be granted, and the Order of the Chancellor denying the writ should be reversed, together with an immediate mandate vesting custody of Patrick Daniel Schenck in his mother, Donna Marie Schenck, as she is now 16 years of age, and married." (Our emphasis).
At another point in appellants' brief appears this statement:
"She is now two years older, and is now 16 years of age, and, is now married."
