Court Opinion

ID: 9695319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:15:29.803362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:10.812649
License: Public Domain

WEISBERGER, Justice,
concurring.
I agree fully with both the reasoning and the result set forth in the majority opinion. In light of the order of the trial justice that the department formulate a plan for the eventual reunion of the mother and her child, I should like to add the following comments.
The undisputed facts in this case establish that Mrs. Thomas has been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. This is a psychosis of a most serious nature. Among the effects of this grave mental disorder are delusions and a disjointed thought process. This illness was described by a qualified psychiatrist as chronic. Although she had been advised that treatment of her psychotic condition was required, she has refused to be admitted to a psychiatric facility or to receive outpatient treatment on a regular basis.
As a consequence, in spite of the euphemisms which Mrs. Thomas’s counsel has employed in referring to her “handicap,” there is a serious question concerning whether Mrs. Thomas is now or will in the future be fit to be the custodian of small children. Although a slight handicap, including non-serious mental or emotional problems, may not affect the fitness and competence of a parent to exercise custody of a child, a serious mental illness is obviously an important factor to be taken into consideration in a custody or dependency decision. Bowler v. Bowler, 355 Mich. 686, 96 N.W.2d 129 (1959); Gardner v. Gardner, 239 Mich. 306, 214 N.W. 133 (1927); see annot. 74 A.L.R.2d 1073 (1960). In Bowler, medical testimony emphasized the “ ‘devastating’ effect that exposure of growing children to such an afflicted parent could have on them, not only in the present but in the unpredictable future * * Bowler v. Bowler, 355 Mich, at 690, 96 N.W.2d at 131. It is worthy of note that Mrs. Bowler also was diagnosed as suffering from “schizophrenia, paranoid type, chronic, active.” In order for the court to find that a child or children are likely to suffer physical and/or emotional harm, it is not necessary that there has been a positive showing of demonstrable physical injury in the past. In re Welfare of Kidd, 261 N.W.2d 833, 836 (Minn.1978). “The state’s role in protecting children may properly be preventive of harm as well as remedial.” In re Lester, R.I., 417 A.2d 877, 881 (1980); Custody of a Minor (No. 1), 377 Mass. 876, 883, 389 N.E.2d 68, 73 (1979); In re Welfare of Yetter, 22 Wash.App. 304, 308, 589 P.2d 815, 817 (1979). These principles should be considered in determining the eventual fitness of Mrs. Thomas as a custodian of her minor children.