Court Opinion

ID: 9691317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:25:22.200275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:16.708449
License: Public Domain

OXBERGER, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The trial court found:
Although the conduct of the child warranted discipline for taking money (even as a prank) and punching holes in the water bed, the court does not condone in *666any way the hard spanking administered to the minor child.
This appears to be the only time this sort of conduct has occurred. It occurred almost 16 months ago (now 28 months).
The spanking occurred on February 6, 1986. The father voluntarily refrained from contacting the boy until supervised visits were set up by the Mercy Hospital Protective Homemaker Service. These were continuing up to date of the trial court’s order of July 8, 1987. The trial court concluded:
It appears undisputed that Billy loves respondent and that respondent loves and is concerned about Billy. He has shown his concern by his active participation in this litigation, by not insisting on his decretal visitation rights until professional assistance was sought, by seeking such professional assistance and by maintaining communication and limited visitation with his son. No parent is perfect. The court considers that respondent is entitled to resume unsupervised visitation with his son, whereby they can have a more normal father-son relationship and do activities together. Both parties should fully cooperate in order to make Billy’s youthful years as happy as can be the case.
I would affirm the trial court’s judgment.