Court Opinion

ID: 9685685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:57:10.653179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:09.401958
License: Public Domain

Grant, J.,
concurring.
I agree fully with the court’s judgment of affirmance in this case. I question only the elevation of the concept of “parental fitness” to coequal status with the concept of a child’s “best interests.”
In this case, the court states: “In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the issues as to which parent shall have custody of the parties’ child is determined by parental fitness and the child’s best interests____”
Until recently we had consistently stated that the controlling issue in determining custody of a child is the best interests of the child. “In placing a child’s custody with a parent in a dissolution proceeding, a court’s primary and paramount consideration is the best interests of the child. Some factors or circumstances which may be considered . . . include considerations of the fitness of the parents . . . .” Gerber v. Gerber, 225 Neb. 611, 618, 407 N.W.2d 497, 502 (1987). “The polar star by which all *973child custody determinations must be guided is the best interests and welfare of the child.” Moeller v. Moeller, 215 Neb. 360, 362, 338 N.W.2d 749, 751 (1983). “ ‘In such a controversy for the custody of the child the order of the court should be made with a single reference to the best interests of such child.’ ” Gorsuch v. Gorsuch, 143 Neb. 572, 577, 10 N.W.2d 466, 468 (1943), quoting Sturtevant v. State, 15 Neb. 459, 19 N.W. 617 (1884).
I see no need to establish two primary considerations, to be guided by two polar stars, or to create two reference points on this issue. Fitness of the parents is only one factor, of many, in the basic determination of a child’s best interests. Section 42-364(1) specifically so provides. That statute states: “In determining with which of the parents the children or any of them shall remain, the court shall consider the best interests of the children, which shall include, but not be limited to: (a). . . ’(b) . . . and (c) . . . .” Fitness of the parents is not listed as a statutory factor. Obviously it should be considered, but I see no need to elevate the “fitness” concept to the primary requirement of “best interests” of the child affected. I believe it leads to unnecessary labeling of parents, which should be avoided, and to an inappropriate analysis in some cases.
Hastings, C. J., and Boslaugh, J., join in this concurrence.