Court Opinion

ID: 9653929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:59:07.530774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:03.824233
License: Public Domain

BARDGETT, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the holding of the principal opinion that section 211.501.2 is unconstitutional under Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972), because the effect of that section is to statutorily bar the putative father from even seeking the adoption of his illegitimate child. In Stanley the statute declared unconstitutional barred a putative father from adopting his illegitimate children because the statute declared him unfit as a matter of law. The effect of both the Missouri and Illinois statutes is the same.
However, I dissent from that portion of the opinion that undertakes to set standards for the determination of the rights of putative fathers. The general assembly has covered that subject in H.B. 972 referred to in footnote one of the principal opinion and that law is now in effect. Having declared section 211.501.2 unconstitutional, I would remand the matter to the juvenile court for proceedings in accordance with H.B. 972 (sections 211.242-211.492, RSMo) instead of judicially adopting any other procedures at this time because it is not necessary to do so.