Court Opinion

ID: 9529721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:53:39.807778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:54.114199
License: Public Domain

PIERCE, Judge,
dissents.
It would appear to me that the General Assembly would not have required a parent to be present, even in an advisory capacity at the time alternatives to a child’s plea and other constitutional rights are being discussed, if that requirement were not of great significance.
Where the record reveals, as this one does, that the parent is totally confused and is unable to advise freely, or is totally confused and unable to support or guide the child because the parent has no understanding of the matters being explained, then the parent is incapable of fulfilling the role contemplated by the General Assembly, *10and this fact alone should be determinative of the issue. See People in the Interest of L.B., supra.
If the understanding of the parent is not a significant factor, then the General Assembly’s requirement is a futility.
I would reverse the judgment.