Kraft v. District Court In and For City and County of Denver, No. 28309
| Docket Nº | No. 28309 |
| Citation | 197 Colo. 10, 593 P.2d 321 |
| Case Date | January 15, 1979 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Page 321
v.
DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR the CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER and
Alvin D.Lichtenstein, District Court Judge, Respondents.
[197 Colo. 11]
Page 322
Gary B. Harbaugh, Broomfield, for petitioner.Richard A. Anderson, Lakewood, for respondents.
CARRIGAN, Justice.
The petitioner, Francis Kraft, father of the minor child, Christopher Kraft, instituted this original proceeding in the nature of prohibition to restrain the respondent district court from exercising jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. Section 14-13-101, Et seq., C.R.S.1973. A rule to show cause was issued and we now make the rule absolute.
[197 Colo. 12] On February 8, 1978, the District Court of Perkins County, Nebraska, ordered the marriage of the petitioner and Cindy Rae Kraft dissolved and awarded custody of Christopher Kraft, ten months old, to the petitioner. That court determined that the Krafts had continuously resided together in Perkins County, Nebraska, from April 3, 1976, until the end of August, 1977. The court found that at the time the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage was filed, both spouses were residents of and domiciled in Nebraska.
At the end of August, 1977, Ms. Kraft temporarily moved, with Christopher, to Denver, Colorado. On October 4, 1977, she was served in Denver with a copy of the Nebraska petition for dissolution and a summons. On October 11, 1977, she returned to Nebraska with the child and they remained there until November 8, 1977. On the latter date she moved to Denver permanently, again taking the child. Ms. Kraft did not participate in the Nebraska divorce proceeding nor was she represented by counsel. Mr. Kraft has maintained his Nebraska residence.
Ms. Kraft, although notified of the Nebraska decree granting Mr. Kraft custody of the child, has refused to return the child to him. On April 24, 1978, Mr. Kraft filed a petition in the Denver District Court asking that court to recognize and enforce the Nebraska custody decree. Ms. Kraft filed an answer, a motion for custody and child support, and a motion for temporary custody, child support, maintenance, and attorney's fees. The petitioner, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
At the motion hearing, the respondent court found that it had jurisdiction to determine custody of the child and ordered a custody investigation by the Department of Social Services.
We hold that the respondent district court, in assuming jurisdiction to determine custody of the child, acted beyond its authority
Page 323
under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. Section...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Grape v. Zach, No. S-93-454
...satisfied. E.g., Kumar v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty., 32 Cal.3d 689, 652 P.2d 1003, 186 Cal.Rptr. 772 (1982); Kraft v. Dist. Ct., 197 Colo. 10, 593 P.2d 321 (1979); Hamill v. Bower, 487 So.2d 345 (Fla.App.1986); Funk v. Macaulay, 457 N.E.2d 223 (Ind.App.1983); In re Marriage of Leyd......
-
Custody of Ross, Matter of, No. 7
...other jurisdictions. See Both v. Superior Court, In & For County of Mohave, 121 Ariz. 381, 590 P.2d 920 (1979); Kraft v. Dist. Court, 197 Colo. 10, 593 P.2d 321 (1979); Matter of Potter, 10 Ohio Op.3d 214, 377 N.E.2d 536 (1978). These cases essentially hold that in "seize-and-run" cases, wh......
-
Yurgel v. Yurgel, No. 74610
...So.2d 114 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); Kumar v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.3d 689, 652 P.2d 1003, 186 Cal.Rptr. 772 (1982); Kraft v. District Court, 197 Colo. 10, 593 P.2d 321 (1979); Padgett; Allen v. Allen, 64 Haw. 553, 645 P.2d 300 (1982); Kelly v. Warner, 119 Ill.App.3d 217, 77 Ill.Dec. 273, 460 N.E......
-
Spaulding v. Spaulding
...(E), (F), (G); 17 see generally In Re Hopson, 110 Cal.App.3d 884, 895-96, 168 Cal.Rptr. 345, 353 (1980); Kraft v. District Court, 197 Colo. 10, 12-13, 593 P.2d 321, 323 (1979); Yearta, 245 Ga. at 832-33, 268 S.E.2d at 153; Slidell, 298 N.W.2d at 601-02; Kaiser v. McClendon, 230 Kan. 472, 63......
-
State ex rel. Grape v. Zach, No. S-93-454
...satisfied. E.g., Kumar v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty., 32 Cal.3d 689, 652 P.2d 1003, 186 Cal.Rptr. 772 (1982); Kraft v. Dist. Ct., 197 Colo. 10, 593 P.2d 321 (1979); Hamill v. Bower, 487 So.2d 345 (Fla.App.1986); Funk v. Macaulay, 457 N.E.2d 223 (Ind.App.1983); In re Marriage of Leyd......
-
Custody of Ross, Matter of, No. 7
...other jurisdictions. See Both v. Superior Court, In & For County of Mohave, 121 Ariz. 381, 590 P.2d 920 (1979); Kraft v. Dist. Court, 197 Colo. 10, 593 P.2d 321 (1979); Matter of Potter, 10 Ohio Op.3d 214, 377 N.E.2d 536 (1978). These cases essentially hold that in "seize-and-run" cases, wh......
-
Yurgel v. Yurgel, No. 74610
...So.2d 114 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); Kumar v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.3d 689, 652 P.2d 1003, 186 Cal.Rptr. 772 (1982); Kraft v. District Court, 197 Colo. 10, 593 P.2d 321 (1979); Padgett; Allen v. Allen, 64 Haw. 553, 645 P.2d 300 (1982); Kelly v. Warner, 119 Ill.App.3d 217, 77 Ill.Dec. 273, 460 N.E......
-
Spaulding v. Spaulding
...(E), (F), (G); 17 see generally In Re Hopson, 110 Cal.App.3d 884, 895-96, 168 Cal.Rptr. 345, 353 (1980); Kraft v. District Court, 197 Colo. 10, 12-13, 593 P.2d 321, 323 (1979); Yearta, 245 Ga. at 832-33, 268 S.E.2d at 153; Slidell, 298 N.W.2d at 601-02; Kaiser v. McClendon, 230 Kan. 472, 63......