Court Opinion

ID: 9689066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:18:15.353182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:44.136502
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I have no quarrel with the general principles of law set forth in the majority opinion. Nor will I belabor the facts of the case, for I am satisfied from the record that the trial judge gave painstaking attention to each of the factors considered by the majority opinion. That the facts may not have indicated unequivocally the decision to be reached is hardly a measure by which to determine that the trial court erred, for how often do the facts speak univocally in a child custody dispute?
Likewise, I am satisfied from the record that the trial court did not shift the burden of proof from the mother to the father.
This case can best be summarized by repeating- the statement made by the trial judge at the conclusion of the August 29, 1980, hearing to the effect that “I would say that in five and a half years, this is the toughest one I’ve ever had.”
Whether I would have made the same decision as did the trial court, I do not know. Given the trial judge’s opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses, however, I cannot say that he clearly abused his discretion in awarding custody of the child to appellee. With respect to the practicality of the order, it is enough for me that the trial judge considered a change of custody essential to the best in*570terests of the child. In this regard it is not without significance that the trial judge was of the opinion that “there has been a subtle, insidious campaign to alienate Jully from her mother.” I would leave it to the trial court to determine the enforceability of its order.
I would affirm the order appealed from.