Court Opinion

ID: 9846797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:48:35.028874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:50.045511
License: Public Domain

Shulman, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
When I first reviewed Baker v. Nicholson, 158 Ga. App. 267 (279 SE2d 717), I considered it an appropriate procedural adjunct to Burch v. Terrell, 154 Ga. App. 299 (267 SE2d 901), and concurred without reservation. Now, however, I find myself convinced by the majority opinion that the better course is to refrain from judicial legislation while preserving for a parent faced with a prima facie showing of a significant failure to support or communicate, the opportunity to demonstrate that the failure is not properly attributable to the parent’s fault and an opportunity to urge on the appellate level that an adverse decision on that issue is erroneous.
The majority overrules Burch only insofar as it has been interpreted to hold that a specific finding of a lack of justifiable cause is required in every order granting a contested adoption. There still remains in effect the holding in Burch that a trial judge has the discretion to determine “whether the action of the parent was in fact legally justifiable.” Id., p. 300. The reservation of such discretion in the trial court is demanded by concepts of justice and fairness and is “necessary and desirable.” Chandler v. Cochran, 247 Ga. 184, 187 (275 SE2d 23). Where the courts are called upon to sever the strongest relationship known to humankind, no legal safeguards or requirements should be abandoned, curtailed or limited. However, the majority is correct in pointing out that the establishment of legal standards such as those here involved is properly within the province of the legislature, not the courts. As I read the majority opinion in this case, it protects the rights of parents without encroaching on the *453prerogative of the legislature to establish the standard by which the courts determine whether a contested adoption is to be granted.
I believe that the fears expressed ip the dissent regarding the application of the “any evidence” rule are unfounded. In the first place, the application of that appellate review standard is not new. In the second place, the application of that rule by the majority is not inconsistent with its holding that evidence of justification must be considered at the trial and appellate levels. Under the majority’s interpretation of the phrase “the best interests of the child,” lack of justification becomes an element of “the best interests of the child” in every case in which evidence of justification is offered. Therefore, in such a case, if there is no evidence of a lack of justification, a finding that the adoption is in the best interests of the child could not be affirmed under the “any evidence” rule. It may be seen, then, that the parent is afforded the same protection under the amended statute as under the previous statute.
I also find myself unable to share the concern expressed in the dissent that this court will be unable to determine whether a trial judge has exercised the discretion involved in these cases unless a particular phrase is used in an order granting an adoption. This court must have confidence in the trial judges of this state. From the date of this decision onward, they will be on notice of the correct standard to apply in cases such as this one. The majority clearly places on the trial judges the .duty to consider whatever evidence, the natural parent may offer in justification. If such evidence is offered and the adóption is still granted, it may be presumed that the trial court has done its duty — has exercised its discretion — and appellate review would proceed on that basis. Of course, it must be remembered that, although we will have the evidence before us in support of justification and in rebuttal thereof, the trial court will have had the opportunity to view the witnesses and to assign weight to their testimony based on demeanor and other intangible factors not available to us. Our review will be limited, as it was under the former statute, to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Although I would have preferred that the legislature not change the former statutory provision to remove the phrase, “without justifiable cause,” it has been done. We in the judiciary must not take license with the handiwork of the legislature. Our role is to work within the framework provided by that branch of government to ensure that justice is done. It is my opinion that the majority, by making a lack of justifiable cause an element of the phrase, “best interests of the child,” has accomplished that goal: the statute is now interpreted in a way consistent with the rules of statutory construction and the rights of natural parents are preserved. For that *454reason, I concur in the majority’s interpretation of Code Ann. § 74-405 (b).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, I concur also in the conclusion in the majority opinion that the evidence in this case supports the trial judge’s finding that adoption is in the best interests of the child, bearing in mind that that statement includes a finding that appellant’s failure to support or communicate with his child was not justified.
For all the reasons expressed herein, I concur in the majority opinion’s interpretation of Code Ann. § 74-405 (b), in its treatment of Baker v. Nicholson, supra; and Burch v. Terrell, supra, and in the affirmance of the trial court’s judgment granting the adoption in this case.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray and Judge Birdsong join in this special concurrence.