Anthony Raftopol v. Karma A. Ramey — Zarella, J., concurring

Summary

This concurring opinion agrees with the jurisdictional ruling and with affirming the order requiring a replacement birth certificate naming the intended parent, despite his lack of a biological relationship to the children. It concludes that the relevant statutes plainly permit that result when read together and that legislative history was unnecessary and, in any event, supports the same interpretation. It also criticizes the majority for using legislative history after finding only one plausible statutory interpretation and for supplying the legislature with an extensive policy agenda.