Court Opinion

ID: 9721631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:04:00.385995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:27.772741
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: The evidence presented to the trial court certainly would have justified the trial court in finding that the respondent was unfit on the grounds of drunkenness. The trial court observed the witnesses, had the opportunity to judge their credibility, and determined, based on that testimony and evidence, that the father was not unfit because of drunkenness. With respect to the stepchildren, Kimberly and David, the trial court could very well have viewed their testimony as biased. Although Warga testified as to drinking prior to confrontations with them, the stepchildren described the incidents as discipline problems with little or no reference to Warga’s drinking. The testimony of Charitie Ann McGuire and John M. McGuire, Lael’s brother and sister-in-law, concerned principally the time period prior to the 1983 divorce. Michelle Lael testified to her former husband’s alcohol consumption during their marriage. She testified that he drank daily during their marriage averaging 12 cans of beer per day and consuming up to 36 cans on alternate weekends when he was not working and that he was intoxicated on a basis of about three times per week during their marriage. This is the same person who testified she separated from Warga in 1981 for a period of time, moving to Springfield, leaving the children with their father in Jacksonville. There also is no showing with respect to any impact on the children or any testimony of unfitness as a father because of the alleged drunkenness. The evidence was not clear and convincing and this court should not overturn the trial court’s ruling unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. It is not. Evidence of drinking, yes. Evidence of drunkenness, no. We should not substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge. I would affirm the trial court.