State ex rel. Hair

11WOODARD, J.,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority view and urge a reversal for the following reasons.

This case, and the resulting judgment, are driven by emotion, innuendo, unsupported supposition, and personality clashes — not fact or law.

For the most part, Ms. Hair’s parental rights were terminated based on Mark’s input. He never testified, but his “story” was tunneled to the court through OCS and Dr. Post, who used it as the basis of his opinion, that Ms. Hair’s parental rights should be terminated, in spite of astounding evidence casting serious doubt on Mark’s…