Kelley v. Kelley
| Decision Date | 30 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 22214,22214 |
| Citation | 423 P.2d 315,161 Colo. 486 |
| Parties | Barbara Helen Doyle KELLEY, Plaintiff in Error, v. George E. KELLEY, Jr., Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John F. Bennett, Alfred Heinicke, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff in error.
Cool & Phillips, Robert Dunlap, Colorado Springs, for defendant in error.
This case arises from a dispute over custody of two of the four minor children of the parties, Barbara Helen Doyle Kelley and George E. Kelley, Jr. Defendant in error will be referred to as George, and plaintiff in error will be referred to as Barbara.
Barbara and George were married in 1946 and separated in 1962. During their marriage, four children were born to them. The custody of the oldest boy (age 18) and the girl (age 12) is not in dispute. The custody of the two younger boys (ages 17 and 6) is here in issue.
In 1962, George filed for divorce in Massachusetts. The divorce was denied and the Massachusetts court entered a decree of judicial separation and orders giving temporary custody of the children to Barbara. In January of 1964, the Massachusetts court gave temporary custody of one of the boys to George and that child has since lived with George in Colorado. In October of 1964, George obtained a default divorce decree from Barbara in Colorado. The complaint in that case advised the court that four children had been born as issue of the marriage and sought a divorce and 'such other relief as to the court seems appropriate.' Barbara was served by mail in Massachusetts and did not appear in the divorce proceedings. After the Colorado decree, in May of 1965, pursuant to Massachusetts practice, the Massachusetts court vacated any and all orders entered by it relative to these parties. There were, therefore, at that time, no custody orders in effect at all with respect to these children and neither party had the exclusive legal custody of the children.
In July of 1965, George took the youngest of the boys from the street in Brookline, Massachusetts and brought him to Colorado. In August of 1965, George filed motions in the divorce action in Colorado for custody of the two boys. Service of process on Barbara was had by mail in Massachusetts. Barbara appeared in person and by her attorneys to contest the motions. The trial court, after full hearings, awarded custody of the two boys living in Colorado to George, directed that there shall be reasonable rights of visitation and that George shall bear the expenses of transportation involved; ordered George to pay Barbara's travel and maintenance expenses and directed him to pay Barbara's attorneys' fees. The court further ordered George to pay support money for the minor children living with Barbara. Barbara brings writ of error here from this judgment of the trial court.
The various assignments of error may be summarized as follows:
(1) The trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction to decide the issue of custody since the pleadings in the Colorado divorce action did not request a determination of custody, and the motions for determination of custody were filed after the expiration of the six months period provided by R.C.P.Colo. 60.
(2) It was inequitable to force Barbara to come to Colorado from Massachusetts when the court had not previously had personal jurisdiction over her.
(3) It was an abuse of discretion to award custody of the two boys to George since it would clearly have been in the best interests of the children to have awarded custody to Barbara.
Barbara's first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction to hear the motions for determination of custody. Barbara relies heavily on the various cases decided by this Court holding that the personal rights of the parties to a divorce may not be adjudicated by a court which does not have full jurisdiction of the dispute. For example, in Triebelhorn v. Turzanski, 149 Colo. 558, 370 P.2d 757, we held that where a final decree of divorce failed to make a division of property and failed to reserve that question for future consideration, jurisdiction of the question of division of property was thereby lost. And in Burson v. Burson, 149 Colo. 566, 369 P.2d 979, we held that a motion for award of alimony was not timely where it was filed more than six months after entry of the divorce decree. It is important to note, however, that motions for determination of custody of children are different in kind from actions to enforce wholly personal rights as in Burson and Triebelhorn. The question of custody of children deals with a status and the issue on such a motion is the welfare of the children. In such matters the rights and personal desires of the parents are subservient to the welfare of the children. Pearson v. Pearson, 141 Colo. 336, 347 P.2d 779; McMillin v. McMillin, 114 Colo. 247, 158 P.2d 444, 160 A.L.R. 396.
George was domiciled in Colorado at the time of the custody hearing, and both children were living with their father in Colorado at the time of the hearing. Moreover, Barbara does not argue that she did not receive actual and complete notice of the proceedings. Parker v. Parker, 142 Colo. 416, 350 P.2d 1067. Barbara's argument, essentially, is that the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, and hence could not decide the issue of child custody.
Our statute covering the subject of child custody orders is C.R.S.1963, 46--1--5. That statute reads in part as follows:
'(1) (a) At all times after the filing of a complaint, whether Before or After the issuance of a divorce decree, the court may make such orders, if any, as the circumstances of the case may warrant for:
'(b) Custody of minor children; * * *
'(4) The court shall retain jurisdiction of the action for the purpose of such later revisions of its orders pertaining to subsections (1)(b), * * * as changing circumstances may require, and for the purpose of hearing any matters recited in subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this section which it was unable to determine at earlier hearings for lack of personal jurisdiction over one of the parties, or for lack of knowledge or information, or because of fraud,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Short, In re
...custody proceeding must be the welfare and best interests of the child. Section 14-10-124, 6 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.); 3 Kelley v. Kelley, 161 Colo. 486, 423 P.2d 315 (1967). Colorado's statute governing child custody requires a broad inquiry into all relevant factors bearing on the welfare of t......
-
Marriage of Wall, In re
...after divorce--a view widely accepted in 1963 in this state when section 14-10-131 was originally enacted, see Kelley v. Kelley, 161 Colo. 486, 492, 423 P.2d 315, 318 (1967) (stating the general rule that the custody of a child of tender years is ordinarily given to the mother)--the strict ......
-
Griffin v. Griffin
...the child. § 14-10-124, 6 C.R.S. (1973 & 1984 Supp.); In re Marriage of Short, 698 P.2d 1310, 1312 (Colo.1985); Kelley v. Kelley, 161 Colo. 486, 490, 423 P.2d 315, 317 (1967). The validity of agreements concerning custody and upbringing of children must be judged against this standard. In r......
-
Saucerman v. Saucerman
...in Donna's custody. The overriding concern of a trial court in determining custody must be the welfare of the child. Kelley v. Kelley, 161 Colo. 486, 423 P.2d 315; Kane v. Kane, 154 Colo. 440, 391 P.2d 361; Hayes v. Hayes, 134 Colo. 315, 303 P.2d 238; Serarle v. Searle, 115 Colo. 266, 172 P......
-
Emerging Spousal Support and Parenting Issues
...Stat., c. 54 (Eng.). 16. 36 and 37 Vict. Stat., c. 2 (Eng.). 17. McKercher v. Green, 58 P. 406 (Colo.App. 1899). 18. Kelley v. Kelley, 423 P.2d 315, 318 (Colo. 1967). 19. Laws 1971, HB 1299 § 1; CRS § 14-10-124. 20. Laws 1983, Senate Bill 286 § 3. 21. Id. at § 4. 22. Id. 23. In re Marriage ......