Court Opinion

ID: 5600707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-11 03:12:09.09462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:36:44.482874
License: Public Domain

MELTON, Justice,
concurring specially.
Although I concur fully in Divisions 1 and 2 of the majority opinion, I cannot concur in Division 3 thereof. Specifically, although the majority identifies a number of statements which may be generally useful for a trial court to include in an order authorizing ex parte interviews, I do not believe these items are required to create a satisfactory order. To the contrary, I believe that a trial court’s discretion in properly adapting an order to the unique facts of each case should not be constrained by a generalized laundry list derived from academic articles rather than relevant state law. In the absence of such law, the development of a list such as the one now espoused by the majority is more akin to a lawmaking process which is better left to the state Legislature.
I am authorized to state that Justice Hines joins in this special concurrence.