Court Opinion

ID: 9516196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:37:01.399472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:54.440724
License: Public Domain

HESTER, Judge,
dissenting:
It is obvious that the Hearing court was acting in the best interest of the children. In view of that court’s past experience in this situation, as well as the circumstances involved, i. e., a mentally retarded, then 10-year old girl, the Hearing court was attempting to give the mother-appellant support and guidance by its directive, “that the welfare of the children requires that the . . . Children’s Services should keep in touch with the situation.” The court merely provided for temporary supervision by Children’s Services. Kathy had been under the care and custody of that agency from May 4, 1970 to December 20, 1971. This fact could not be ignored by the Hearing court. This proceeding was not contested by the father who voluntarily placed these girls in their mother’s custody in January, 1978. I would affirm on the opinion of President Judge Shughart of the court below.