Court Opinion

ID: 9669453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:56:35.874265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:56.783451
License: Public Domain

VERNON R. PEDERSON, Surrogate Judge,
concurring specially.
This case illustrates the confusion that has resulted from the efforts of the Legislative Assembly and the Department of Human Services, being encouraged by well-meaning experts, to find simple solutions to complex domestic problems through “clear and easy guidelines.”
Because the family is not created using contractual rights and contractual obligations, when the family is being dismantled contract rules and mathematical formulas do not help a lot.
Through experience, even when reaching most unhappy results, the courts developed goals, sometimes bearing labels: “best interest of the child,” “least damaging alternative,” “ability to pay,” “parental concern,” and “societal obligation.” They were not “clear and easy” in their application, neither did they become straitjacket rules.
“Neither parent [in this case] questions the applicability of the guidelines....” For that reason I can concur with the opinion authored by Justice Meschke.