Court Opinion

ID: 9641998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:45:18.751432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:41.784253
License: Public Domain

COMBS, Judge,
concurring:
In the first appeal to this court, the failure to name the minor child (H.R.) as a party was adjudicated to be a fatal flaw depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal at all — much less to rule on the merits. Similarly, the trial court had no jurisdiction initially. Once H.R. was named as a party upon remand, the trial court was vested with jurisdiction for the first time and was thus empowered to rule on all matters de novo.
In misperceiving the commentary that transpired during the first appeal to be binding as to its deliberations upon remand, the trial court improperly invoked a non-existent law of the case doctrine; the law of case doctrine was merely a mirage under the facts of this case.
The essence of this opinion is to urge the trial court to begin anew and to enter its own findings of fact and conclusions of law in the exercise of its unfettered discretion. The life, happiness, and well-being of a child are the crucial concern of all of us who have labored on this case, and there has been a considerable investment of effort by all involved to reach the correct and just result. It is surely a most worthwhile expenditure that we hope will soon conclude.