 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. Johnson9/14/2000
09-09." The majority continues, at 31, stating "love, affection, kindness and generosity" are encouraged between a stepparent and stepchild. The majority states, at 31:
It would be contrary to our state's public policy to undermine the development of such relationships by encumbering a normal stepparent-stepchild relationship with the threat of child support obligations which go beyond that required by N.D.C.C. § 14-09-09. Stepparents in this state might refrain from taking their spouses' children into their homes, for fear that their kindness could result in the accrual of a burdensome obligation. We recognize, given the increased prevalence of blended families in our society, such a result would be detrimental to many children in this state. Then, at 32, the majority concludes the present circumstances are not a "normal stepparent-stepchild relationship envisioned by that statute."
[ ] If the policy underlying section 14-09-09 were applied to this case, Antonyio Johnson's support obligations to Jessica Clayton would cease because she is no longer in his home. The majority's desire to protect stepparent-stepchild relationships, like the rationale of Miller, is laudable. However, by refusing to apply the public policy as expressed in section 14-09-09 to the facts of this case, the majority decision obtains exactly what it proclaims it seeks to prevent.
[ ] In the absence of a statute expressly addressing the issue, "making social policy is a job for the Legislature, not the courts . . . his is especially true when the determination or resolution requires placing a premium on one societal interest at the expense of another: `The responsibility for drawing lines in a society as complex as ours-of identifying priorities, weighing the relevant considerations, and choosing between competing alternatives-is the Legislature's, not the judiciary's.'" Van v. Zahorik, 597 N.W.2d 15, 18 (Mich. 1999) (citations omitted).
D.
[ ] Further invading the province of the legislature, the majority concludes that imposition of child support is not precluded under our law. A child is defined, under the Revised Uniform Adoption Act, as "a son or daughter, whether by birth or adoption." N.D.C.C. § 14-15-01(3); see also N.D.C.C. § 1-01-18 ("The term `children' includes children by birth and by adoption."). For purposes of child support, a "child" is defined as "any child, by birth or adoption, to whom a parent owes a duty of support." N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-01(1). The majority, discussing N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-01(1) at 33, states:
The regulation does not state that such an obligation may be imposed only in cases where a child has been adopted according to statutory procedures. In addition, we believe our state's public policy of promoting the well-being of children, which is expressed through the guidelines, supports the imposition of a child support obligation on an equitable parent when the circumstances of the case require it.
[ ] The majority concludes, from the absence of language addressing a doctrine that has been neither legislatively enacted nor previously adopted by this Court nor adopted by a large enough percentage of states to even be classified a minority, that the legislature intended to include "equitable adoption" when it stated "adoption." "Words . . . must be construed according to the context and the rules of grammar and the approved usage of the language. Technical words . . . as have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law, or as are defined by statute, must be construed according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning or definition." N.D.C.C. § 1-02-03; see also N.D.C.C. § 1-02-05 ("When the w
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 North Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|