Court Opinion

ID: 9851285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:09:49.497499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:53.034468
License: Public Domain

Ruffin, Judge,
concurring specially.
I fully concur with the majority opinion. I write separately regarding Division 3 to address potential concerns relative to the distinction between an adopted daughter and a daughter related to her father by blood.
The majority cites language from our adoption statutes requiring that an adopted child be treated “as if the adopted individual were a child of biological issue of that petitioner.” OCGA § 19-8-19 (a) (2). That statute further provides that “[t]he adopted individual shall enjoy every right and privilege of a biological child of that petitioner; [and] shall be deemed a biological child of that petitioner. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Id. OCGA § 16-6-22 (1) requires for the offense of incest that a father and daughter be related by “blood or by marriage. . . .” Appellant, Billy Wayne Edmonson, argues that because the incest statute requires a “blood” relationship, adopted children cannot be the victims of incest. In order to embrace this argument, one must distinguish between a biological relationship and a blood relationship. I do not believe such a distinction is possible, and even if it were, the circumstances of this case demand that the victim be treated as Edmonson’s blood daughter under the adoption statute.
The first rule of statutory construction requires courts to “look diligently for the intention of the General Assembly, keeping in view at all times the old law, the evil, and the remedy.” OCGA § 1-3-1 (a). Our Supreme Court has made it clear that insofar as the adoptive parent is concerned, the legislature’s intent in promulgating OCGA § 19-8-19 (a) (2), was to place an adoptive parent on the same footing, and with the “same rights and obligations as a biological parent.” Ivey v. Ivey, 264 Ga. 435, 436 (1) (445 SE2d 258) (1994). If, under the incest statute, a blood father is required to refrain from sexual intercourse with his daughter, then the same must be true of an adoptive father who stands on the same footing and with the same obligations to his daughter as the blood parent. An adoptive father cannot be permitted to enjoy the benefits of fatherhood, engage in sexual relations with his adoptive daughter, and then claim that he cannot be prosecuted for incest. To entertain such whim is to summon a specie of credulity that is beyond the province of humankind.
As for the adopted child, historically our adoption statutes have been construed so as to benefit the child. “ ‘As the main purpose of adoption statutes is the promotion of the welfare of children, . . . wherever possible without doing violence to the terms of the statute, *326such a construction should be given adoption laws as will sustain, rather than defeat, this purpose.’ [Cit.]” Macon, Dublin &c. v. Porter, 195 Ga. 40, 41 (22 SE2d 818) (1942). The vicissitudes of life produce many aberrations, and incest is among the most abhorrent. Certainly a construction of the adoption statute that prohibits an adoptive father from having incestuous relations with his adopted daughter is more beneficial to the daughter’s welfare than a construction that allows such loathsome and disgusting relations.
Decided November 17, 1995
Reconsideration denied December 5, 1995
Virgil L. Brown & Associates, Bentley C. Adams III, Larkin M. Lee, for appellant.
Peter J. Skandalakis, District Attorney, Jeffery W. Hunt, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Moreover, we must be conscious of the “evil” the legislature sought to prevent in enacting the incest statute. In passing the incest statute, the legislature must have intended to do more than prohibit intercourse with a child, for this could have been easily accomplished within the confines of OCGA § 16-6-3, creating the offense of statutory rape. It is the violation of familial relationships and the trust and emotional attachments that stem from those relationships that are, in addition to sexual relations, proscribed by the incest statute. See generally, Raiford v. State, 68 Ga. 672 (2) (1882) (discussing the vulnerability of a child under such a relationship). I do not believe under any circumstances, that our General Assembly intended to exclude adopted children from such protection.
The second rule of statutory construction is to apply to all words their ordinary significance. OCGA § 1-3-1 (b). After much searching, I cannot comprehend a definitive distinction between “biological” relationships and “blood” relationships as those terms are used in the two statutes. Indeed, The American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd ed. 1993) defines “biological” as: “Related by blood: [e.g.,] his biological sister.” I believe under the circumstances of this case, that upon giving the words “biological” and “blood” their ordinary significance, it is clear that the words are synonymous. Courts should not use the outrageous to decide the obvious.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Beasley joins in this special concurrence.