Opinion ID: 2218920
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: basic position

Text: It is the position of this writer that the placement of legal custody with a guardian/relative (grandfather who dearly loves his grandson and has been the child's primary caretaker), with appropriate supervision by DSS, and subject to such other conditions as the Court may impose, is clearly a lesser restrictive alternative; as such, and as the evidence reflects in the record (not the slanted version of facts in the majority opinion), such a disposition would be commensurate with this little boy's best interests. Expressed another way, grandson should be with grandfather and grandmother, and not be put up for adoption, destroying this child's basic right to know and love his own flesh and blood; and the Statists should not be permitted to disassemble a family because the evidence supporting termination was not clear and convincing as defined in Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982), thus eliminating fundamental personal liberties. Majority decision expressly repudiates: 1. The best interests of the child; under People in Interest of S.M.M., 349 N.W.2d 63 (S.D.1984), termination of parental rights is a drastic, final step that should be exercised with great caution, and the best interests of the child in mind. 2. Application of the least restrictive alternative rule; authority: Matter of C.L., 397 N.W.2d 81 (S.D.1986). 3. Outwardly distorts the facts concerning the grandmother's treatment of her grandson by using a conclusory, adjective phrase, i.e., a brush off reflecting Grandmother, while not neglecting or threatening Son, did little to care for Son. (Emphasis added). 4. The extended family concept in families; (yes, the Negroes proudly have Roots); are white people entitled to this commendable trait? See CAVEAT, Roots, by Alex Haley, Double Day & Company, copyright 1976, Garden City, New York. 5. True facts herein, absolutely uncontroverted, that the DSS, through the social worker damaged (if not destroyed) State's case by (1) not seeking termination and said so and (2) suddenly whirled and reversed its decision, deciding to terminate. Findings of Fact entered below were clearly erroneous under People in the Interest of M.K., 466 N.W.2d 177 (S.D. 1991). 6. And hides the true facts that the grandfather and grandmother had this little boy (diapers and all) for 15 of the first 20 months of his life. DSS was not there during the long nights, feeding formula, and rocking the baby. Babies need love, attention, and time. Grandfather was there; DSS worker was in her state office. 7. The clear and convincing evidence rule totally. Santosky, supra . 8. Fundamental personal liberties, thereby turning children into chattels of the state. Santosky, supra . Here, the State champions the cause of the state, economically feeding a government department, [1] based its decision upon a federal money scheme (federal money flowing in for more state jobs) advocating in its brief that THE BOY WOULD BE EASY TO ADOPT. Since when is that a determining factor? Obviously, that is not a good reason for separating a little tyke forever from his family. What kind of society have we become? Does this Court exist to exalt the state over the individuals? That is exactly the opposite of why we had the American Revolution! What has become of the rights of free men? What is the basic unit of society? The state or the family? The core unit of society is the familynot the state. A family is the religious, social, and productive unit; a family is the most powerful institution in society, controlling in terms of biblical law, the key areas of society, children, property, and inheritance. Civilizations rise and fall, according to the nature of family life. The State, in its warfare against society, as depicted here, strikes most emphatically against the family and then the church. We (some of us) saw this develop in Italy, Germany, and China. Kill the familykill the church then the statean inanimate institution steps into fill the void. By erosion, it appears the core of society, as most of us in the early and middle 1900's witnessed and lived it, is destroyed. Today's society shifts responsibility to others and to the state. The state is to provide jobs, subsidies, freedom from worry and self-discipline; and yes, if a boy would be easy to adopt, eliminate the boy from his grandfather and the grandfather from the boy. And likewise the grandmother. Mother, forever, shall never see her son. This is a cold, heartless decision. It is truly an espousal from cradle to the state to the grave. I cannot join it and, accordingly, I dissent. Statists have their own supreme god the State. They live by power and coercion. They implant fear in good menmen of freedom. They have no conscience and live by a false dogmatic ism. Here, regretfully the State's case is based upon: Say, we are in the baby business and we have a nice, little baby boy, raised by his grandfather and he is easy to adopt. His mama has used drugs, alcohol, and has mental problems. You out there, do you want to adopt a nice little boy? We're in the baby business today! Some parents are terrible to their children. When abuse is rampant and neglect is daily, society should involve itself to protect the child. I do not deny that; but, here, a dear grandfather, age 47, in good health, and a respected teacher, gave love, food, and care to his grandson. If one were to concede the mother was not a good parent, how can we blind ourselves to the fact that within this little boy's family, he had excellent care from a grandfather. By this decision, do we attain a social policy that a grandfather can no longer raise a grandson? Now, this Statist approach, would deny him forever his side by the very grandson he helped through the tough days of early infancy. It is written (yes, the Bible is a better guide than the DSS): Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Ephesians 5:11-13. I reprove.