Court Opinion

ID: 9778229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:56:31.366335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:05.388179
License: Public Domain

GREEN, Justice,
concurring.
The outcome in this case is tragic, and it is with great reluctance that I concur in the result.
The result is wrong when judged on the basis of whether it is in the best interest of the child. The result is wrong when judged on the basis of whether it is fair and just. And the result is wrong when judged on the basis of sympathy and emotion. Indeed, one has only to read the anguished testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Hollander at the habeas corpus hearing to gain an understanding of the horror they were experiencing at the prospect of losing their adopted child. But this case cannot be decided on the basis of such standards. Unhappily, we are instead compelled by our oaths of office to apply the pertinent law to the facts, and we have no discretion in this instance. Under these facts, however, the faceless, unemotional objectivity of the law does not seem well-suited.
Ironically, the result in this case occurs despite the good intentions of those acting to protect against just this result. In adding the 48-hour waiting period to the voluntary relinquishment provision of the termination statute, I am sure the legislature intended to strengthen the finality of the procedure for terminating parental rights. As applied to these facts, however, the legislation instead provides appellant with a legal loophole to escape the consequences of her “irrevocable” affidavit relinquishing her rights to Baby Girl Sims. This is a nightmare scenario for any adoptive family; to the Hollander’s, it is now a terrible reality.
The affidavit of relinquishment signed by appellant was valid and enforceable when it was signed on August 18, 1995. Had the termination suit based on the affidavit been disposed of prior to September 1, 1995, appellant would have had no recourse. If the affidavit had been signed twenty-two (22) hours later than it was, Baby Girl Sims would remain the adopted daughter of her new and obviously very devoted and loving parents. It cannot be right that a legal technicality—the difference of a mere twenty-two hours, or even a delay of thirteen days—should have such an enormous impact when speaking of the life of a child. The effect on either the Hollander’s or Baby Girl Sims is not at all assuaged by the trite explanation that it is what the law requires.
Justice Hardberger was correct in noting that this is a heart-rending case. The law has failed in this instance to protect the child in whose best interests we purportedly act.