Bailey v. Bullock, 15244.
| Decision Date | 14 December 1942 |
| Docket Number | 15244. |
| Parties | BAILEY et ux. v. BULLOCK. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
In Department.
Error to Juvenile Court, City and County of Denver; Christian D Stoner, Judge.
In the matter of the People of the State of Colorado in the interest of H. Wayne Bullock and Roger Paul Bullock upon the petition of Norris J. Bailey and another against H. W. Bullock regarding the custody of a child. To review an order of the juvenile court changing the custody from that of his grandparents to his father, the grandparents, Norris J Bailey and another bring error.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
O. Otto Moore, of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Isaac Mellman, of Denver, for defendant in error.
This review involves an order of the juvenile court of Denver having the legal effect of changing the custody of an eight year old boy from that of his maternal grandparents plaintiffs in error, residents of Denver, to his father defendant in error, now a resident of New Mexico.
Because of the view we take of the case, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the merits, and shall consider only two question: 1. Alleged error of the trial court in admitting in evidence a certain letter over the objection of counsel for the grandparents. 2. The alleged failure of the trial court to enter an order dispensing with the necessity of filing a motion for a new trial, which question was raised by counsel for defendant in error some time ago by motion to dismiss the writ of error, but upon which we reserved judgment until final disposition.
1. The admission of the letter in evidence was improper because the content thereof was clearly hearsay. It was written by the senior Child Welfare Worker of the Department of Public Welfare of the state of New Mexico in response to a letter written by one of the officers of the Denver Juvenile court relating to the present economic, social and domestic status of the father. Pierce v. Pierce, 97 Colo. 228, 48 P.2d 1024.
With the letter eliminated, there was no evidence of 'changed conditions' upon which the court could properly enter an order transferring custody to the father.
Counsel for defendant in error seems to be of the opinion that practice in the juvenile court does not require observance of the ordinary rules of evidence. The same opinion was entertained by a former distinguished judge of the juvenile court who appeared Before us as amicus curiae in the case of Board of Control of State Home v. Mulertz, 60 Colo. 468, 154 P. 742, 745, and contended that 'the matter of procedure cuts but little, if any, figure,' We said then, and repeat here: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co.
...hearsay and in a civil or criminal action would be inadmissible to prove the truth of any assertion contained therein. Bailey v. Bullock, 110 Colo. 205, 132 P.2d 783. It is argued, however, that the Industrial Commission is not bound to observe 'common law or statutory rules of C.R.S.1953, ......
-
Wright v. People in the Interest of Rowe, 17564
...of investigators contained in their reports, with no opportunity for cross-examination afforded respondent's counsel. In Bailey v. Bullock, 110 Colo. 205, 132 P.2d 783, our Court 'Counsel for defendant in error seems to be of the opinion that practice in the juvenile court does not require ......
-
Suzuki v. Suzuki
...error for the trial court to have received in evidence the hearsay reports of the case worker of the Welfare Department. Bailey v. Bullock, 110 Colo. 205, 132 P.2d 783. It does not follow, however, that a reversal of the judgment is necessary because of that error. The nature of the 'report......