Court Opinion

ID: 9858217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:18:35.82385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:32.480653
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Justice
(dissenting).
Kelly has had the sole responsibility for the day-to-day care of Holly since the child’s birth, except for the period of joint custody for a few months before trial. Even during that period Kent lived with his parents, and they provided the bulk of Holly’s care on the days when Kent had custody. Kent has never demonstrated either an ability or willingness to accept the responsibilities of parenting on a sustained day-today basis. The most he has shown is that he will help his parents care for Holly when it does not interfere with his otherwise self-indulgent pursuits.
Even though Kelly engaged in conduct like Kent’s after the parties separated, she has demonstrated an ability and willingness to accept parenting responsibilities. I do not believe the record establishes that her behavior after the failure of the marriage was other than an aberration based on that event. In the long range, she is more likely than Kent to minister effectively to Holly’s best interests.
The court does not award custody to the paternal grandparents but nevertheless treats their care of Holly as a vital feature of the decision. The problem with this is that no reason exists for believing Kent will continue to reside in his parents’ home one moment longer than will be convenient for him in the light of his own record of erratic and irresponsible behavior.
I would award Holly’s custody to Kelly.
HARRIS and SCHULTZ, JJ., join this dissent.