Court Opinion

ID: 9669636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:02:14.468607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:58.856099
License: Public Domain

EDWARD D. MULALLY, Judge
(concurring specially):
While I agree that the matter should be remanded to the trial court for further consideration and more complete findings after appellant has had an opportunity to respond to the recommendations of the county attorney’s office, I disagree with the majority opinion to the extent that:
1. I do not, under the circumstances apparent at this time, agree that the trial court erred in suspending appellant’s visitation rights.
2. The credibility of Dr. Ralph Under-wager, Dr. Sharon Satterfield, and Catherine Hoeckle in the field of psychiatry-psychology was and is a matter for determination by the trial court.
3. While the needs and religious convictions of the appellant are a valid consideration, and while the court should give weight to his desires in the matter,' the selection of an appropriate treatment program for appellant is a function of the trial court.