Court Opinion

ID: 9674617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:31:50.245996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:28.509879
License: Public Domain

Jim Johnson, Associate Justice, (Dissenting). Upon the strong showing made by appellants as to the unfitness of the appellees to be entrusted with the care and custody of these little children, I am convinced that the motion for Reconsideration should have been granted. This is a child custody case which is before us on trial de novo. It is so well settled as to require no citation of authority to support the proposition that one of the paramount questions which should concern us the most is the welfare of the children. The superior position enjoyed by natural parents in questions of custody as cited in the majority opinion has always been reserved for those parents who are deserving of that position. My research fails to reveal an application of this rule in a single case where the suggestion of unfitness of a natural parents is nearly as strong as that made in the affidavits filed in support of appellants’ motion to reconsider. Therefore, it seems to me that since this is an Equity case and the trial court’s order specifically retained jurisdiction of the cause for the making of such further orders as the court might find to be proper and necessary, the cause should be remanded for further development so as to permit the appellants to properly present their proof on the most vital and startling matters alleged in their affidavits. These matters certainly go to the heart of the question of the welfare of the children. To the extent indicated, I respectfully dissent.