Title: D.C.R., Sr. v. J.A.Z.; Apl of: Pa. DOC (concurring/dissenting)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-85-2010][M.O. - Orie Melvin, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT D.R.C., SR. v. J.A.Z. v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, INTERVENOR APPEAL OF: PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, INTERVENOR : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 27 MAP 2010 Appeal from the Superior Court at No. 1167 MDA 2009 dated 3/5/10 affirming the order of York County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division at No. 2004-FC-354- 03 dated 4/15/09 ARGUED: October 20, 2010 CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: November 23, 2011 To my knowledge, Pennsylvania courts previously have implemented the rather straightforward, plain-language approach of treating prison visitation as a subset of visitation for purposes of the Domestic Relations Code. See, e.g, Etter v. Rose, 454 Pa. Super. 138, 684 A.2d 1092 (1996). I disagree with the majority’s holding that there is some (apparently latent) ambiguity in this regard. I also differ, in substance, with the majority’s application of the principles of statutory construction. To me, the legislator’s comments which are quoted at length by the majority provide little insight into the questions at hand; moreover, I fail to appreciate why counseling is not appropriate to visitation between a prisoner-parent and a child. [J-85-2010][M.O. - Orie Melvin, J.] - 2 From my perspective, this case is less about whether Section 5303 applies to prison visitation than who must pay for the services. In this age of unfunded mandates, this can be a very difficult question. As to the present circumstances, however, I agree with the Department of Corrections that there is no basis -- statutory or otherwise -- for imposing the burden upon it. Madame Justice Todd joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.