Court Opinion

ID: 9851169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:08:27.139696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:50.415625
License: Public Domain

Eberharot, Judge,
concurring. Because of the statutes and the cases cited I must concur in the opinion and judgment. However, it seems to me that there is a discord in this facet of the law, particularly in the light of the view of today’s society toward children of an “unlocked wedlock.” It seems incongruous to say that the father, who wishes to assume the obligation imposed upon him by statute (Code § 74-202), to legitimate and adopt his son, who is the “blood of his blood and bone of his bone,” and bring him through youth to maturity and manhood under the guidance and restraints of a father who loves and cares, has no standing as against strangers to whom the mother has surrendered her rights and interest in the child.
The father is young, but his experiences on the battlefields and unfriendly terrain of Vietnam have doubtless matured him beyond his years. He could devote time to the instruction of the boy in intangibles of untold worth in all the years of life by roaming with him through the fields and woods and about the streams, the mountains and ocean shore, teaching him to-hunt and to fish, to identify the flora and the fauna and to appreciate the beauties and wonders of nature, to play “Little-League ball,” to engage in activities of the Boy Scouts and other similar things. The worth of such character building efforts by a father with his children is immeasurable. He can do-much to instill in the boy a respect of and love for his country and bring him to maturity with a realization of his responsibilities as a citizen. But we must deny those opportunities-both to the father and to the son.
The father and his wife hold good, responsible jobs in the-community, producing incomes which will enable them to afford the boy the necessities and many of the comforts of life and, most importantly, a good education. When the time arrives for college education or special training of the child they will be in the prime of life.
This is not to disparage the applicants, to whom the mother *497has given her rights in the child. The evidence requires a finding that they, too, are good people. I have no doubt that their efforts would be in the right direction. But it simply cannot be overlooked that they do not and cannot have the interest of a blood kinsman; that they are approaching the time in life when the shadows lengthen; and that within two years the breadwinner will have retired when they, with the child, must live on social security. When the boy has reached adulthood it is not unlikely that the applicants will be on the golden isles of somewhere — beyond the sunset.
It seems to me that there should be some recognition in our law of the father’s interest beyond the imposition of an obligation to support.