Marriage of Adamson, In re
| Decision Date | 12 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80CA0299,80CA0299 |
| Citation | 626 P.2d 739 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Richard W. ADAMSON, II, Appellant, and Sandra Weinrauch, formerly Sandra Adamson, Appellee. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Cashen, Cheney, Johnston, Adamson & Campbell, R. W. Johnston, Jr., Montrose, for appellant.
Spurgeon, Haney & Howbert, Charles E. Painter, Colorado Springs, for appellee.
In this dissolution of marriage action, the husband appeals the trial court's order granting the wife's request for extended visitation with the parties' son. We affirm.
The marriage of the parties was dissolved in 1975. In a separation agreement incorporated into the decree of dissolution, the parties agreed that the husband would have custody of the then three-year old boy, that the wife would have reasonable visitation upon notice to the husband, and that the wife "may at her option have the minor child spend with her one month each year and after the child reaches the age of fourteen years, if the child so desires."
In 1979 the wife filed a "Motion for Interpretation and Clarification of Separation Agreement," requesting the trial court to establish specific visitation schedules. The husband stipulated to all of the wife's requests except a request that the boy spend two two-week periods with her during summers. At a hearing on this motion, the husband testified that the child had experienced physical and emotional problems in prior summers after visiting with the wife for a single two-week period, and these problems would be exacerbated by any additional visitations.
The wife testified that the husband had created many obstacles to the exercise of her visitation rights in prior years. The trial court concluded that it was in the child's best interest to permit the two two-week summer visitation periods requested by the wife.
The husband first contends that the trial court failed to apply the appropriate standards in granting the wife's motion. We disagree.
Orders determining, visitation rights are incident to custody orders and must further the best interests of the child. Section 14-10-129(2), C.R.S. 1973; Harrison v. Harrison, 170 Colo. 397, 462 P.2d 119 (1969); In re Marriage of McGee, Colo.App., 613 P.2d 348 (1980). A custodial parent must be given wide latitude in carrying out his or her responsibilities of caring for minor children, Bernick v. Bernick, 31 Colo.App. 485, 505 P.2d 14 (1972), and the trial court has broad discretion to fashion visitation arrangements to further the child's best interests. Searle v. Searle, 115 Colo. 266, 172 P.2d 837 (1946). Here, the trial court expressly considered the child's best interests in its written order clarifying the wife's visitation rights. The record contains ample evidence to support its conclusions; hence, no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated. See Searle v. Searle, supra.
The husband contends that before modifying the wife's visitation rights the trial court was required to determine that the child's physical health would be endangered or his emotional development would be significantly impaired in the absence of such modification. We disagree.
Section 14-10-129, C.R.S. 1973, defines visitation rights as follows:
(1) A parent not granted custody of the child is entitled to reasonable visitation rights unless the court finds, after a hearing, that visitation by the parent would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair his emotional development.
(2) The court may make or modify an order granting or denying visitation rights whenever such order or modification would serve the best interests of the child; but the court shall not restrict a parent's visitation rights unless it finds that the visitation would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair his emotional development.
The entire statute must be considered to ascertain the General Assembly's policy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Dureno, In re
... ... (1980 Repl.Vol. 1B) ... The right to visitation is derived from the right to custody and is governed by the same legal principles. See § 14-10-124, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B); In re Marriage of Sepmeier, 782 P.2d 876 (Colo.App.1989); In re Marriage of Adamson, 626 P.2d 739 (Colo.App.1981). Thus, it would be inconsistent, if not absurd, to hold that a stepparent or other third-party is entitled under one section of the Act to an award of legal custody, but has no right of visitation under another section of the Act ... We note that ... ...
-
Seravo v. Seravo
... ... Several states apply a "best interest" analysis without requiring a special showing of change or harm. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Adamson, 626 P.2d 739, 740 (Colo.Ct.App.1981); Bury v. Bury, 312 Pa.Super. 393, 396, 458 A.2d 1017, 1018 (1983); In re Stuck, 291 Pa.Super. 61, ... ...
-
Milanovich v. Milanovich
... ... the visitation rights of parents and children it must be remembered that such rights are merely incidents of custody orders, In Re the Marriage of Adamson (1981), Colo., 626 P.2d 739, and therefore the same principles apply to visitation as are applicable to custody ... In ... ...
-
Marriage of Plummer, In re, 84CA1122
... ... Section 14-10-124(1), C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.). Section 14-10-129(1), C.R.S., specifically encourages liberal visitation by the non-custodial parent, limited only by careful consideration of the child's best interests. See In re Marriage of Adamson, 626 P.2d 739 (Colo.App.1981) ... The trial court ordered "liberal and reasonable visitation" between the wife and the parties' 15-year-old son "to include a minimum of meeting at a restaurant for breakfast over a weekend or meeting for lunch during the week each and every week." ... ...
-
ARTICLE 10
...circumstances are harmful is not only not authorized by this section but, if adopted, would defeat the legislative policy. In re Adam-son, 626 P.2d 739 (Colo. App. 1981). Evidence sufficient for denial of motion to reduce father's visitation rights. Where the court found that the visitation......
-
ARTICLE 10 UNIFORM DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ACT
...circumstances are harmful is not only not authorized by this section but, if adopted, would defeat the legislative policy. In re Adamson, 626 P.2d 739 (Colo. App. 1981). Evidence sufficient for denial of motion to reduce father's visitation rights. Where the court found that the visitation ......
-
Hearsay Exceptions: Availability of Declarant Immaterial — Rule 803
...panel found the statement was cumulative and, even if assumed inadmissible, there was no reversible error. In re Marriage of Adamson, 626 P.2d 739 (Colo. App. 1981). • For an in-depth article discussing the admissibility of specific statements made by children concerning their wishes or pre......