Court Opinion

ID: 9522364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:23:57.586187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:40.092496
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE MILLS, concurring in part and dissenting in part: Upon taking the woolsack in 1617, Lord Chancellor Bacon said: “The subject’s pulse beats swift, though the Chancery pace be slow. Fresh justice is the sweetest.” This case is stale! The minor son here was 14 years old at the time of the hearing, 15 when the order was finally entered, and is 16 years old now! Besides, what “significance” a social worker sees in keeping this boy with his married sister escapes me. The lad’s preference for his father seems to have been afforded short shrift even though the judge considered the home and family environment' of both parties to be beneficial and a “close” question. Furthermore, a fair reading of the record reflects a clash of personalities and/or values between the trial judge and the petitioning father. The basis for the custody order here is murky and overcast. It is to this issue only that I dissent. It should be reversed and remanded for another examination of the merits — and quickly, or the boy will be of age!