Court Opinion

ID: 9677994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:08:21.307399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:01.096691
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
Although it is difficult to dispute the cold legal logic of the majority, I believe this Court should give a broader interpretation to the phrase “best interests of the child.”
In this type of case, any jurist must be blessed with Solomon-like wisdom when faced with the agonizing decision between a biological mother and adoptive parents of obvious sincerity and good will. Either party faces an agonizing loss. In any such proceeding, the truly innocent party is the infant child. Therefore, I believe it is entirely appropriate to carefully consider the best interests of the child at all stages of the proceedings. The infant baby boy who *248is the subject of this litigation, is most certainly “an important human being” as in Van Wey v. Van Wey, Ky., 656 S.W.2d 731 (1983). It is the infant child who will be impacted with the consequences of the ultimate decision. No other action involving an unmarried infant could ever be more important in this child’s life than the ultimate adjudication of his custody and future home. Consequently, I believe this Court should direct that a guardian ad litem be appointed in all such proceedings.
I would extend the “best interests” principle to all stages of the proceedings. For an additional discussion of this concept, see Natural Parent Preferences, or the Child’s Best Interests, 12 U.C.L.A.-Alaska Law Review, 141 (1983), and Alternatives to Parental Rights in Child Custody Disputes Involving Third Party, 73 Yale Law Journal, 151 (1963).
Here the result will not be in the best interests of the child and I cannot agree to it.