Court Opinion

ID: 9591987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:09:27.554765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:16.530973
License: Public Domain

Smith, J.,
dissenting.
The majority opinion comes to this: No major variable, except the judgment of the trial court, is significant.
The three sons of the parties were not represented by counsel. No rule of this court even authorized appointment of counsel for them. The Legislature ameliorated this abomination in our adversary system in 1972 —too late for the trial court to act. See Laws 1972, L.B. 820, § 12, p. 249.
Given the insignificance of all but one major variable and the absence of a truly adversary proceeding, I consider expert forensic opinions outside the record. Behavioral scientists have tentatively concluded that an award like the one before us increases the danger of harm to the personality of the boy. See, Burton and Whiting, “The Absent Father and Cross-Sex Identity,” Studies in Adolescence 107 (R. Grinder Ed., 1965); Lynn and Sawrey, “The Effects of Father-Absence on Norwegian Boys and Girls,” 59 J. Abnormal Soc. Psych. 256 ('1959'); Wylie and Delgado, “A Pattern of Mother-Son Relationship Involving the Absence of the Father,” *80229 Am. J. Orothopsychiatry 644 (1959). See, also, Brad-brook, “The Relevance of Psychological and Psychiatric Studies, to the Future Development of the Laws Governing the Settlement of Inter-Parental Child Custody Disputes,” 11 J. Fam. L. 557 at 563, 575, and 580-87 (1972); Kleinfield, “The Balance of Power Among Infants, their Parents and the State,” 4 A. B. A., Fam. L. Q. 320 at 330 and 335-36 (1970).
I would award custody of the boys in this suit to their father.
Newton, J., joins in this dissent.