Court Opinion

ID: 9577701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:37:12.293295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:04.040939
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
dissenting.
“It is universally recognized by all courts that in fixing the custody of a child, the consideration of the welfare and interests of the child outweigh all other considerations.”
42 Am.Jur.2d Infants § 43.
“[T]he court’s primary concern is the well-being of the child and its physical, mental, and moral development in an environment most adapted to and promotive of its full growth. All other considerations will be deferred or subordinated to the child’s welfare.... ”
Annot., 15 A.L.R.2d 432, 435 (1951) (citations omitted).
This is a child custody case. Yet, nowhere does the majority even discuss “the best interests of the child.” The parent-child relationship is fundamental. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 27, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 2159, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981). Because the parent-child relationship may be altered only in the best interests of the child, and because the majority analysis appears infirm, I respectfully dissent.
Domestic violence is unacceptable. Bruner v. Hager, 534 N.W.2d 825, 829 (N.D.1995)(Sandstrom, J., concurring in the result). The goal of punishing perpetrators of domestic violence, however, cannot justify a child-custody award that is, in fact, not in the best interests of the child. Certainly domestic violence should be considered as it affects the best interests of the child. To the extent the majority analysis fails to limit child-custody-case consideration of domestic violence to the extent it in fact affects the best interests of the child, it is constitutionally infirm.
If the majority is saying, under the current law, a finding of domestic violence preempts consideration of all other factors relating to the best interests of the child, the legislation is remarkably parallel to that struck down as unconstitutional in Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972).
The United States Supreme Court explained the Illinois law:
“Under Illinois law, therefore, while the children of all parents can be taken from them in neglect proceedings, that is only after notice, hearing, and proof of such unfitness as a parent as amounts to neglect, an unwed father is uniquely subject to the more simplistic dependency proceeding. By use of this proceeding, the State, on showing that the father was not married to the mother, need not prove unfitness in fact, because it is presumed at law. Thus, the unwed father’s claim of parental qualification is avoided as ‘irrelevant.’ ”
Stanley at 650, 92 S.Ct. at 1212. The State of Illinois argued in its brief:
“ ‘[T]he only relevant consideration in determining the propriety of governmental intervention in the raising of children is whether the best interests of the child are served by such intervention.
“ ‘In effect, Illinois has imposed a statutory presumption that the best interests of a particular group of children necessitates some governmental supervision in certain clearly defined situations. The group of children who are illegitimate are distinguishable from legitimate children not so much by their status at birth as by the factual differences in their upbringing. While a legitimate child usually is raised by both parents with the attendant familial relationships and a firm concept of home and identity, the illegitimate child normally knows only one parent — the mother_’ ”
Stanley at 653 n.5, 92 S.Ct. at 1213 n.5. The Court noted:
“In Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971), we found *724a scheme repugnant to the Due Process Clause because it deprived a driver of his license without reference to the very factor (there fault in driving, here fitness as a parent) that the State itself deemed fundamental to its statutory scheme. Illinois would avoid the self-contradiction that rendered the Georgia license suspension system invalid by arguing that Stanley and all other unmarried fathers can reasonably be presumed to be unqualified to raise their children.
“It may be, as the State insists, that most unmarried fathers are unsuitable and neglectful parents. It may also be that Stanley is such a parent and that his children should be placed in other hands. But all unmarried fathers are not in this category; some are wholly suited to have custody of their children. This much the State readily concedes, and nothing in this record indicates that Stanley is or has been a neglectful father who has not cared for his children. Given the opportunity to make his case, Stanley may have been seen to be deserving of custody of his offspring. Had this been so, the State’s statutory policy would have been furthered by leaving custody in him.”
Stanley at 653-55, 92 S.Ct. at 1213-14 (footnotes omitted). The Court concluded:
“Despite Bell and Carrington [v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 775, 13 L.Ed.2d 675 (1965)] it may be argued that unmarried fathers are so seldom fit that Illinois need not undergo the administrative inconvenience of inquiry in any case, including Stanley’s. The establishment of prompt efficacious procedures to achieve legitimate state ends is a proper state interest worthy of cognizance in constitutional adjudication. But the Constitution recognizes higher values than speed and efficiency. Indeed, one might fairly say of the Bill of Rights in general, and the Due Process Clause in particular, that they were designed to protect the fragile values of a vulnerable citizenry from the overbearing concern for efficiency and efficacy that may characterize praiseworthy government officials no less, and perhaps more, than mediocre ones.
“Procedure by presumption is always cheaper and easier than individualized determination. But when, as here, the procedure forecloses the determinative issues of competence and care, when it explicitly disdains present realities in deference to past formalities, it needlessly risks running roughshod over the important interests of both parent and child. It therefore cannot stand.”
Stanley at 656-57, 92 S.Ct. at 1215 (footnotes omitted).
Because the majority ignores the fundamental need to determine the best interests of the child in fact, I dissent.