Court Opinion

ID: 9706171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:33:24.526443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:19.863936
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Kendall, j.
concurs: I agree with the majority opinion in the result reached but for altogether a different reason.
The order of adoption made by the trial court contained the following provisions:
“. . . and the court further finds that the Wayne County Department of Public Welfare has heretofore filed herein its report as to the proposed adoption of said child, and the court has duly examined the same and finds that, in said report, said department recommends the adoption of said child by the petitioners. . . .”
The report of the Welfare Department as referred to in the Order was not introduced into evidence, and, therefore, is not a part of the record. Under such conditions, I cannot overlook that portion of the Order which says, “. . . the court has duly examined the same . . . said department recommends the adoption of said child by the petitioners. . . .”. I do not believe that this court can overlook the fact that the party opposing the adoption did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the member of the Welfare Department submitting the report to the court which was examined by the court as to the items therein concerned upon which the Welfare Department based their recommendations. Under *168these circumstances, I do not believe it proper for the trial court to bolster the decision by an instrument which is foreign to the evidence of the cause.
It may well be that a report made by the Welfare Department in the course of their duties might include statements and other evidence which would not be properly admitted as evidence in the trial of the cause, thus resulting in an unfair trial. People v. Lewis (1932), 260 N. Y. 171, 183 N. E. 350; Attkisson v. Usrey (1946), 224 Ind. 155, 65 N. E. 2d 489.
For this reason, it is my opinion that the judgment should be reversed.