Court Opinion

ID: 9587539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:23:25.956333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:52.865896
License: Public Domain

HARTZ, Judge (specially concurring). I concur in the affirmance of the district court judgment and in Parts I, II, and III of this court’s opinion. I do not join in Part IV because counsel for father stated at oral argument that he was not challenging the validity of the marriage. The majority notes that the question considered in Part IV “may have been implied in one or both of father’s appellate issues.” I do not think, however, that an appellant should be entitled to our review of an issue unless it is explicitly raised. The backlog in our docket does not permit us time to search for issues to consider. I recognize that the thorough, scholarly discussion in Part IV makes a contribution to the law in this area. Yet I find on our docket no lack of similarly interesting and challenging issues that, unlike this one, are clearly before us. Those are the issues we should be addressing. I trust that in the future appellate counsel will not assume that this court has an obligation in general-calendar cases to address issues not explicitly raised.