Devereaux v. Devereaux
| Decision Date | 22 August 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 19475,19475 |
| Parties | Mardina G. DEVEREAUX, Plaintiff in Error, v. Charles Frank DEVEREAUX, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Donald E. Kelley, Frank A. Elzi, Robert A. Powell, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, herein referred to as petitioner, filed in the usual form, a petition in the Denver Juvenile Court alleging that defendant in error, herein referred to as respondent, was the father of the two boys, Charles Frank Devereaux born December 19, 1955 and Michael Wade Devereaux born January 14, 1957; that said children were dependent upon the public for support; that respondent has failed and refused to provide proper support for said children; that respondent has encouraged, caused or contributed to the dependency of said children, and that he is able to support such children.
Prior to the taking of testimony on March 15, 1960 respondent orally moved to have the name of Charles stricken from the petition and the action dismissed insofar as it related to said child. In support of this motion respondent offered certified copies of a complaint in annulment and divorce, the summons, return of service, docket entries and findings and judgment in civil action No. 1504 in the County Court of Rio Blanco County, Colorado.
The findings and judgment of said county court show only that the respondent appeared in said court and that petitioner, although served with summons, did not appear and neither petitioner nor the child, Charles was present or represented. The Rio Blanco Court found that petitioner and respondent had been married July 14, 1955 and that on that date petitioner had a husband living, from whom she was not divorced, hence was unable to consummate a valid marriage; that because the birth date of Charles was December 19, 1955, several months less than the normal period of human gestation, no child had been born as issue of said purported marriage, and entered a decree annulling the marriage.
The trial judge in the instant case held that the Rio Blanco Court's judgment was an adjudication that the respondent was not the father of Charles and ordered his name stricken from the petition and dismissed the petition as to said child.
Petitioner is here by writ of error contending that the Rio Blanco County Court by its decree did not, and under the record could not, determine the parentage of the child Charles, but merely found that the child was not conceived subsequent to the marriage ceremony. Further that had the Rio Blanco Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paternity of SDM, Matter of
...in that case involving her mother and the presumptive father, she cannot be bound by the decree of divorce. Devereaux v. Devereaux, 144 Colo. 31, 354 P.2d 1015, 1016 (1960). In Devereaux, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that parentage of a child is not an issue in a divorce or annulment ac......
-
McNeece v. McNeece
...We disagree. The parentage of a child is not an issue necessarily decided in a divorce or annulment action. See Devereaux v. Devereaux, 144 Colo. 31, 354 P.2d 1015. However, where, as a part of a divorce action, the court hears evidence, makes a child support order, and by necessary implica......
- Gonzales v. People, 19004
-
ARTICLE 10
...561 P.2d 20 (1977). The parentage of a child is not an issue in a divorce or annulment action between the parents. Devereaux v. Devereaux, 144 Colo. 31, 354 P.2d 1015 (1960). Formerly, before a court could enter its findings in favor of a defendant, it must have necessarily found that the d......
-
ARTICLE 10 UNIFORM DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ACT
...561 P.2d 20 (1977). The parentage of a child is not an issue in a divorce or annulment action between the parents. Devereaux v. Devereaux, 144 Colo. 31, 354 P.2d 1015 (1960). Formerly, before a court could enter its findings in favor of a defendant, it must have necessarily found that the d......
-
Annulments in Colorado
...maintenance payments. 34. CRS § 14-10-111(6); In re Marriage of Blietz, supra, note 2. 35. CRS § 14-10-111(4); Devereaux v. Devereaux, 354 P.2d 1015 (Colo. 1960). 36. CRS § 14-10-111(2). 37. In re Marriage of Altman, 530 P.2d 1012 (Colo.App. 1974). This presumption can be overcome by showin......
-
Determining Paternity in Domestic Cases
...§ 19-1-104(1)(g). 4. C.R.S. 1973, § 19-6-101. 5. C.R.S. 1973, § 19-1-106(4)(a)(1). 6. C.R.S. 1973, § 14-5-128. 7. Devereaux and Devereaux, 144 Colo. 31, 354 P.2d 1015 (1960). 8. C.R.S. 1973, § 14-10-111(4). 9. 153 Colo. 90, 384 P.2d 731. 10. 151 Colo. 211, 377 P.2d 115. 11. A complete discu......