Johnson v. People in Interest of W-- J--, W------J------

• Decision Date: 06 October 1969
• Docket Number: W------J------,No. 24091,24091
• Citation: 459 P.2d 579,170 Colo. 137
• Parties: Nancy JOHNSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of, and Upon the Petition of Carmah Lawler, Defendants in Error.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 579

459 P.2d 579

170 Colo. 137

Nancy JOHNSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of W------J------, and Upon the Petition of Carmah Lawler, Defendants in Error.

No. 24091.

Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department.

Oct. 6, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 27, 1969.

James Rode, Richard F. Hennessey, Bruce Myr Flossic, Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Max P. Zall, City Atty., Frank A. Elzi, Robert A. Powell, Asst. City Attys., Denver, for defendants in error.

HODGES, Justice.

As authorized by 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 22-1-4(1) of the recently enacted Colorado Children's Code, a petition was filed in the juvenile court in Denver alleging that W.J., an infant child, lacked proper parental care because of the actions or omissions of Nancy Johnson, the child's teen-aged, unwed mother. The summons, which was served on Nancy Johnson, with a copy of the petition, notified her that at the hearing on the petition, the court would also determine whether her parental rights should be terminated to free the child for adoption. Prior to the hearing, the Denver Welfare Department had placed the child in a foster home where the child has apparently remained during the pendency of this writ of error.

Having expressed the desire at the hearing and before to keep the child, Nancy Johnson now seeks reversal of the judgment of the juvenile court which declared that the child was dependent or neglected; that the child lacked proper parental care; and that Nancy Johnson's parental rights were terminated, thus freeing the child for adoption.

Nancy Johnson was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and the hearing on the petition in the juvenile court. In support of her writ of error, it is contended that the evidence before the juvenile court was insufficient to support the finding of dependency, neglect and lack of parental care. We are also urged to reverse the court's judgment terminating Nancy Johnson's parental rights on the claim that this disposition is proper only after a separate dispositional hearing, which was not afforded in this case. In this regard, it is also claimed that her constitutional rights of due process were thus violated.

From our examination of the record in this case, we have concluded that the assignments of error are without merit and we, therefore, affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

I.

The juvenile court found on the issue of dependency or neglect that the testimony and evidence before the court proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Nancy Johnson failed to provide proper parental care for the child because of her actions or omissions and because of her apparent limitations.

It is unnecessary to detail the evidence. The total impact of all the evidence before the juvenile court reveals that Nancy Johnson is immature; that she lacks a sense of responsibility or appreciation regarding child care; that she is without any means of support from family or employment; and that she is limited in employment opportunities. The evidence fully supports the juvenile judge's conclusionary comment that he 'cannot conceive the return of said child to the respondent mother in the foreseeable future.'

One of the declared purposes of the Colorado Children's Code is to secure for each child, who is brought within the provisions of this enactment 'such care and guidance, preferably in his own home, as will best serve his welfare and the interests of society.' See 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 22-1-2 which also directs that the provisions of the Colorado Children's Code shall be liberally construed in order to carry out its purposes.

It is obvious that the juvenile judge's determinations were guided by what would best serve the welfare of the infant child and the interests of society. The clear basis of the juvenile court's finding that the child was dependent or neglected was the juvenile court's supported apprehension and awareness that the health and welfare of the child was jeopardized and would in the future be seriously endangered in the custody of Nancy Johnson. On this premise, the juvenile court's action was not only proper but was the only course of action which could be justified under the Colorado Children's Code.

1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 22-3-6(1) requires a finding by the juvenile court after the adjudication hearing that the allegations of the petition 'are supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.' The juvenile court made such a finding. Most of the evidence presented in support of the petition was undisputed and the totality of all the evidence clearly supports the finding and order of the juvenile court that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the infant child lacked proper parental care because of Nancy Johnson's apparent limitations and because of her actions and omissions. The juvenile court was the fact finder. In accordance with the rule so often expressed by this court, we will not disturb such a finding unless the evidence is patently insufficient as a matter of law. The evidence here cannot be so characterized. Andersen-Randolph Co., Inc. v. Taylor, 146 Colo. 170, 361...