Court Opinion

ID: 9748308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:59:26.22799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:34.260499
License: Public Domain

NARES, J., Concurring.
I concur in the result, based upon my interpretation of the relevant statutes mandating the major consideration in this case must focus on Jimmy’s best interests. However, I write separately because I *1189am concerned with the majority’s broad statement that juvenile law expresses no affirmative duty to keep siblings together. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1187.) I disagree with this broad statement because I believe that family relationships, whether parent-and-child or sibling, are equally important in our society. (As Father Flanagan’s Boys Town motto states, “He ain’t heavy, Father. He’s my brother!” (Oursler & Oursler, Father Flanagan of Boys Town (1949) p. 170.)) I would not relieve the juvenile court from an affirmative duty to keep siblings together whenever possible.
Here, this was not possible. Further delays in obtaining stability for Jimmy would not benefit anyone. Where, as here, siblings cannot be placed together, the juvenile court should, however, encourage and promote a continuing sibling relationship between Jimmy and his brother Gerald.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied March 12, 1992. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.