Court Opinion

ID: 9846798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:48:35.03202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:50.050187
License: Public Domain

Been, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I.

As to Burch

I must respectfully beg to differ from the majority opinion in its construction of Burch v. Terrell, 154 Ga. App. 299 (267 SE2d 901) (1980), to the extent that it. holds that “Burch stands for the proposition that under existing Code Ann. § 74-405 (b) the trial court must make a specific finding that the parent’s failure to communicate with or support his child was ‘without justifiable cause,’ ” in the apparent belief that such would apply to all future cases involving Code Ann. § 74-405 (b). Burch did not so hold and if it had the statement would have been obiter. The language dropping “without justifiable cause” became effective on July 1,1979. The court’s order in this adoption case, which was entered on August 6, 1979, was written with reference to the former law and made a finding of fact that the father had failed to communicate “without justifiable cause” during the preceding year. All this court stated was: “Whatever the reason for dropping this phrase, we do not construe it as depriving the trial court of a discretion in determining whether the action of the parent was in fact legally justifiable.” This was in answer to appellant’s contention in that case that the presence of the words “without justifiable cause” deprived the trial court of any discretion in construing the facts and rendering a decision. It is therefore in my opinion a misconception of Burch to hold that “it holds the trial court must make a specific finding” of lack of justifiable cause in every case henceforth. What Burch actually held was that the trial court’s statement that the act was in fact without justifiable cause did not render the opinion in that case erroneous. Judge Shulman in the *455present case supports this principle in citing Chandler v. Cochran, 247 Ga. 184, 187 (275 SE2d 23) (1981), which points out that the reservation of such discretion in the trial court is necessary and desirable. This is exactly the position taken by Burch. When the father’s visitation rights in Burch were refused by the mother, the Ohio court cancelled the support provisions of the father until further order. This court held cessation of support payments was justified under these undisputed facts, but, remanded the case for a new decision under paragraph (1) as to whether a bona fide attempt to communicate with the child was made (excluding the failure to support evidence) using the same court discretion and criteria guidelines of determining justifiable cause as originally used by the trial court when first considering (1) and (2). We believe that was justifiably a good and correct holding then, and, indubitably it is a misconstruction, misinterpretation and mistake to now overrule Burch for something it does not say and on a point of law not therein represented.
II.
As to Parental Rights
Parental and family rights are fundamental unalienable immutable superior rights acting as limitations when colliding against the inferior powers of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the state. The latter, in order to supersede the former, must have a “compelling interest” (free exercise) or there must exist a “clear and present danger” (free speech) and other similar burdensome tests on the state in areas of public health, safety and morality wherein these fundamental rights of citizens are sought to be severed, curtailed or denied. “... The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” (Emphasis supplied.) Pierce v. Society of the Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 535 (45 SC 571, 69 LE 1070) (1925). “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” (Emphasis supplied.) Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166 (64 SC 438, 88 LE 645) (1943). The rights of parents, child and family are found in the “Right of Privacy” contained in and around the periphery, penumbras and emanations of the 1st Amendment in addition to the procedural and substantive due process safeguards of the 14th Amendment and 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (85 SC 1678, 14 LE2d 510) (1965).
The whole court case of Chancey v. Dept. of Human Resources, *456156 Ga. App. 338 (274 SE2d 728) (1980) established that the issue of severing parental rights based on fitness or parental fault unfitness or incapacity of the parent is a separate issue from the judge finding such action in the best interest of the child. The court specifically held parental rights may not be terminated solely upon the latter finding. Permissible guidelines were approved in this case including, but not limited to, phrases such as “detrimental and egregious parental misconduct” — “gross misconduct or some physical or mental disability” authorizing unfitness — “intentional or unintentional misconduct.” None of this particular wording is contained in the statute. Whether the trial judge bases his findings as to compliance with a fitness or unfitness charge or statute requiring the support of a child, or whether the parent made a bona fide attempt to communicate with the child, the discretion of the trial judge must allow some guidelines such as “without justifiable cause” — “justified” — or “entirely blameless” as suggested by the majority opinion, the latter of which is not in the statute, or “not properly attributable to the parent’s fault” suggested by Presiding Judge Shulman in his special concurrence, the latter also not appearing in the statute — as a separate test from the “best interest of the child” determination.
III.

(1) & (2) of Code § 74-405 (b)

The majority opinion is predicated upon the presupposition that the additional wording in the statute “and the court is of the opinion that the adoption is for the best interest of the child” is applicable to both Sections (1) and (2) of Code § 74-405 (b). The words eliminated from the code section “without justifiable cause” did precede Sections (1) and (2), and no one questions the applicability of the words eliminated to both sections. The General Assembly in eliminating the old wording and inserting new wording, “best interest of the child,” could have included the latter as preceding and applicable to both Sections (1) and (2), but it only included the new wording under (2), and the wording does not appear in Section (1). It would be reasonable to assume that the legislature intended to require this additional consideration of the “best interest of the child” to be another finding by the court as to Section (2), but not Section (1). At the very least it can be said that this new wording “best interest of the child” is ambiguous as to whether it modifies only (2), or, (1) and (2).
It is indisputable that the General Assembly specifically elected to delete language preceding Sections (1) and (2) and the new wording omitted from the location of the wording deleted and likewise specifically placed the new wording under Section (2). It *457must be presumed that the General Assembly therefore, when making this change, intended that the requirement that a parent’s significant failure to communicate with his child be totally separate and apart from the new requirement “best interest of the child.” This expression by the legislature is clear: “ ‘. . . this declaration by the General Assembly, being the last expression of its intention as to what shall be the law of the State, absolutely controls...’” Osborne v. Ridge View Assoc., 238 Ga. 377, 378 (233 SE2d 342) (1977). It is the “cardinal or preeminent rule” of statutory construction that this legislative intent be given effect. Ford Motor Co. v. Abercrombie, 207 Ga. 464 (1) (62 SE2d 209) (1950). The court cannot question the purpose or wisdom in refusing to place the new requirement “best interest of the child” as applicable to and preceding Sections (1) and (2). This is a matter for the exclusive determination of the legislature, and is of no legitimate concern to the court. Thompson v. Eastern Air Lines, 200 Ga. 216, 223-224 (36 SE2d 675) (1946). “[T]he courts in construing a statute can neither add to nor take away from it. [Cits.]” State Revenue Com. v. Alexander, 54 Ga. App. 295, 296 (187 SE 707) (1936).
In applying the above rules of statutory construction to this code section, the majority cannot engraft a new test of whether “the natural parent was entirely blameless” in failing to communicate with his child as somehow included and a part of a presumption existing in favor of ..the continued rights of the natural parent when the court concludes his finding relating to the “best interest'of the child.” The majority in effect erroneously concludes that the “best interest of the child” presupposes a finding of “justifiable cause” or unjustifiable cause, but it obviates the need for the court to make a specific finding on this issue. As pointed out by Judge Sognier in his dissent, the majority’s construction and new rule of obscure vague verbiage dilutes and erodes the parent-child defense and constitutes no less judicial usurpation of a legislative prerogative than continued use of with or without justifiable cause. In addition, it compounds the work of the trial and appellate courts with complex guidelines with which I must respectfully disagree. Were this a case involving a routine dog-bite civil case or a peeping tom criminal case, the parties would be entitled to a trial by jury as a matter of right while presenting their defense. Where, as here, parental rights are hanging in the balance and may be terminated, the parent is not entitled to a jury trial, but, this in no way requires us to narrow the guidelines as to permitting a broad, complete and full opportunity to have their day in the trial court and for the appellate court in making its review to clearly understand the findings of the court below of parental defense justifications.
*458IV.

As to Baker

It is my belief that Presiding Judge Shulman and Judges Birdsong and Sognier were correct in extending the use of . . without justifiable cause in order to demonstrate a full exercise of the trial court’s discretion ...” even without statutory authority, in the case of Baker v. Nicholson, 158 Ga. App. 267, 268 (279 SE2d 717) (1981), in order to see that justice was done. Green v. Coast L. R. Co., 97 Ga. 15, 36, 37 (24 SE 814) (1895). It has been said that when an issue is once clearly stated the answer is immediately apparent and forthcoming. It is fair to state the question: Should this court adopt and approve as guidelines (1) the natural parent was partially or “... entirely blameless in failing to communicate with . . .” plus the justifiable cause material issue subsumed into “best interest of the child” irrespective of the ambiguity as to the latter modifying “failing to communicate” (Carley); (2) “... not properly attributable to the parent’s fault,” plus, justifiable cause subsumed into “best interest of the child,” plus, “there still remains in effect the holding in Burch that a trial judge has the discretion to determine ‘whether the action of the parent was in fact legally justifiable’ ” (Shulman); (3) “without justifiable cause” (Sognier); (4) gross or “. . . intentional or unintentional misconduct...” (Banke in Chancey, supra)? None of the above phrases per se are set forth in the statute. It might be further argued that the words “or to make a bona fide attempt to communicate” and “without justifiable cause” are synonymous, that is, if the parent fails to do the former he has failed in the latter. The former is a minimum requirement of a specific act a parent must meet and the latter is a guideline for the weight or quantum of evidence relative to the success or failure of the parent as to this statutory charge of conduct.
It is my opinion we should not overrule the safer and sounder rule set forth in Baker, supra, as it is a clear, concise court guideline.
V.

Evidence in this Case

The defense of with or without justification was raised by appellant but not addressed by the court. The record reflects testimony by the mother to the effect that appellant was evicted from his apartment because he brought a black woman home, that he would take a bath with the minor child, and that the child would come back to the mother with kinky, frizzy pigtails in her hair put there by Daddy’s black friend. The father testified that he ceased paying child support when he was refused visitation. He further testified he put the support money into a Bible for the child when the mother might call for it, producing it to the court for examination. He claims he did *459not and would not resist the garnishment because of his desire to support the child. It cannot be said as a matter of law that a factfinder could not find that the appellant had “failed significantly for a period of 12 months to communicate with or support his child,” but the failure was with justifiable cause. We must confront this issue no less than deciding “best interest of the child.” See Burch, supra. I concur with and agree with all that is said in Judge Sognier’s dissent and would reverse accordingly.