Court Opinion

ID: 9693761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:59:10.960554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:50.100761
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority’s opinion has emotional appeal, but lacks judicial restraint. I sense an underlying struggle to understand what forces would lead parents to make a decision that would separate their children from siblings and other blood relatives. I do not pretend that I know or understand, either. I do understand, however, that the law permits parents to terminate their parental rights. I understand, too, that as a jurist I cannot allow empathy to displace the law.
“A child’s interests are best served when all those who demonstrate an interest in his or her welfare are allowed to be heard.” (Op. at 15) The majority touts “the best interests of the child” as if it were a battle cry. It is stirring, but empty of meaning when used so. The adoption proceeding is not a public forum where anyone, even a relative, may attempt to persuade the court that placement of the child should be with the applicant.
I cannot conceive that the majority would allow an individual who was unrelated to the child to intervene in the proceeding even if such individual was financially and emotionally capable of taking care of the child. Understandably so, for adoption is not a bidding process — even if well-intentioned. Why then should it be that a relative of the child will be permitted to intervene. A person who is not a party to an action may not intervene if the action will not affect any legally enforceable interest of the person. Interest is more than concern; it is a right that is legally enforceable.
In his Dissenting Opinion, Justice Flaherty has taken care to explain the difference between such concern and the interests of the parties under the Adoption Act. I need not *234repeat his explication. The law may not be what the majority desires, but we are all illserved when it is ignored.
I dissent.