Court Opinion

ID: 9720299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:25:09.582868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:15.576353
License: Public Domain

FINE, J.
(dissenting). Section 48.90(1), STATS., 1995-96, provides, as material to this appeal:
A petition for adoption may be filed at any time if:
(a) One of the petitioners is a relative of the child by blood.
The majority, like the legendary Merlin of old, has used the alchemy of interpretation to transform what it sees as the dross of statutory insensitivity into gold that reflects a more enlightened view of public policy. With a magic wand of words, the majority transmutes "is a relative of the child by blood" into "is a relative of the child"; poof, by the majority's magic, the word "blood" is gone!
We exceed our authority as judges when we ignore the clear language of a statute.1 See State v. Martin, *799162 Wis. 2d 883, 907, 470 N.W.2d 900, 910 (1991) (courts construe statutes, not rewrite them "by judicial fiat"). I respectfully dissent and would affirm.

 The majority notes that the legislature has amended § 48.90(l)(a) to read, as material to this appeal:
A petition for adoption may be filed at any time if:
(a) One of the petitioners is a relative of the child by blood or by adoption.
1997 Wis. Act 104, § 15m. The majority also notes that a respected treatise on statutory construction recognizes that if *799an amendment to a statute is enacted "soon after controversies" as to how the statute should be interpreted, "it is logical to regard the amendment as a legislative interpretation of the original act." 1A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 22.31 at 279 (5th ed. 1992). Significantly, the legislature added the words "or by adoption" rather than clarifying, as the majority contends, that the words "by blood" encompassed "by adoption" all along. I take this to mean that the legislature recognized that "by blood" meant what the words denote and nothing more.