Court Opinion

ID: 9721432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:59:16.030852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:25.807444
License: Public Domain

Smith, J.,
concurring.
The majority opinion discourages continuing controversies over child custody. I would adapt the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act generally for judicial use at least on the basis of comity. The adaptation harmonizes with the majority opinion which properly respects the California decree. I concur that Lawrence’ needs for a stable environment and a secure family relationship require return to his mother. See, 1968 Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 198 (1968); Bodenheimer, “The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act; A Legislative Remedy for Children Caught in the Conflict of Laws,” 22 Vand. L, Rev. 1207 (1969).
This court has been vigilant to protect property rights of minor children. See, Workman v. Workman, 167 Neb. 857, 95 N. W. 2d 186 (1959), 174 Neb, 471, 118 N. W. 2d 764 (1962). It ought to be no less vigilant respecting their personal rights. I would promulgate this prospective rule: In a custody proceeding, the trial court must appoint counsel for minor children. See, generally, Coyne, “Who Will Speak for the Child?” 383 Ann. Am. Ac. Pol. & Soc. Sc. 34 (1969); Inka and Per*806retta, “A Child’s Right to Counsel in Custody Cases,” 5 A.BA. Family L. Q. 108 (1971); Kleinfeld, “The Balance of Power Among Infants, Their Parents and the State,” 4 A.B.A. Family L. Q. 320, 409 (1970), 5 A.B.A. Family L. Q. 1, 64 (1971).