Court Opinion

ID: 9569310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:12:44.097122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:53:13.677300
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J.,
concurring.
The majority opinion is correct and well reasoned in my view. I write only to comment that there is no persuasive evidence that the trial court was misled by petitioner’s affidavit or testimony. At the time it made its ruling, it was aware that petitioner had not interviewed the complainant. Finally, I note that the literal application of Principle 3.c deprives trial courts of the benefit of what is generally helpful evidence regarding child custody and visitation issues. It will be a rare occurrence where a psychologist treating one parent will have the opportunity to interview and evaluate the other parent before rendering an opinion on behalf of the children. It is unfortunate that trial courts will be deprived of such beneficial evidence before rendering what are always gut-wrenching decisions.