Court Opinion

ID: 9689385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:29:48.043746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:32.801173
License: Public Domain

Markman, J.,
(concurring). I concur fully in the reasoning and conclusions of the majority opinion. However, I am concerned that its several references to the fact that the alleged biological father of Jessie Sounds is dead, and that a judgment in favor of defendant “could leave the child essentially fatherless,” suggest that our decision might have been different had the alleged biological father still been alive. I do not believe that such an inference should be drawn from the majority opinion or that this is its intention. Rather, what is significant in the majority opinion is its straightforward proposition that an “equitable parent” stands on “equal footing with any other natural or adoptive parent.” We affirm the decision of the trail court, not because the alleged biological father happens to be dead, but rather because plaintiff is the “equitable parent.” He would be just as much the “equitable parent” if the alleged biological father were still alive and prepared to assert his fatherhood at this late juncture.