Marriage of Trouth, In re
| Citation | 631 P.2d 1183 |
| Decision Date | 11 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80CA0733,80CA0733 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Steven F. TROUTH, Appellee, and Lois Trouth, Appellant. . II |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
Worth F. Shrimpton, Craig, for appellee.
Feldhamer, Fischer & Associates, P. C., Mark J. Fischer, Hayden, for appellant.
This is an appeal by the mother from an order of custody granting custody of her minor child to the paternal grandparents. She challenges the propriety of the trial court's award to persons who were not parties to the action. We affirm.
The child, born in July 1977, has lived with his grandparents since April 1978, when his parents separated. The father was awarded custody of the minor child after a default dissolution hearing and entry of decree.
In December 1979, the mother filed a motion to modify custody or visitation. At the hearing on this motion, the trial court heard testimony from the parties, from the grandparents, and from other witnesses. The court also examined reports from the Department of Social Services and heard testimony from the caseworker who prepared the report concerning the environment at the grandparents' home. It found that it would be in the best interests of the child to continue to reside with his grandparents, and granted custody to the grandparents with visitation rights for the mother.
The mother argues that the trial court erred in granting custody to the grandparents without having made them parties pursuant to § 14-13-111, C.R.S.1973. We disagree.
This provision of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, together with its stated purposes, indicate that the Act does not apply to actions which are purely intrastate. The purposes of the Act are to promote cooperation between courts of different states which will lead to an informed decision on custody, § 14-13-102, C.R.S.1973, and to "prevent the desperate shifting from state to state of thousands of innocent children by interested parties seeking to gain custody rights in one state even though denied those rights by the decree of another state." Fry v. Ball, 190 Colo. 128, 544 P.2d 402 (1975). Thus, § 14-13-111 is not applicable here since the child, his parents, and his grandparents resided in Colorado, and the divorce and the custody decree were entered by a Colorado court.
The Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act, § 14-10-101, et seq., C.R.S.1973, is the applicable statute under these circumstances. Under the earlier divorce statutes, a court could award custody to those who were not parties to the action if that were in the best interests of the child.
"In this regard it is well-established that when it is conducive to the child's best interests a trial court may refuse to award custody to either parent and may award custody to some one other than a natural parent of the child." Rippere v. Rippere, 157 Colo. 29, 400 P.2d 920 (1965).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Custody of C.C.R.S., In re
...See Abrams v. Connolly, 781 P.2d 651 (Colo.1989); In re Marriage of Dureno, 854 P.2d 1352 (Colo.App.1992); In re Marriage of Trouth, 631 P.2d 1183 (Colo.App.1981); In re Marriage of Tricamo, 42 Colo.App. 493, 599 P.2d 273 We reject the mother's argument that only step-parents or blood relat......
-
Marriage of Dureno, In re
...did not alter the traditional authority of Colorado courts to award custody to third parties in dissolution actions. In re Marriage of Trouth, 631 P.2d 1183 (Colo.App.1981). Additionally, we note that the supreme court has ruled that the "affinal" relationship between stepparent and stepchi......
-
Brandon S.S., In Interest of
...201 (1984); Nelson v. Nelson, 433 So.2d 1015, 1019 (Fla.App.1983); Gluse v. Dennison, 462 A.2d 32, 33 (Me.1983); In re Marriage of Trouth, 631 P.2d 1183, 1185 (Colo.App.1981); Clark v. Clark, 404 N.E.2d 23, 28 (Ind.App.1980).21 Quisenberry v. Quisenberry, 785 S.W.2d 485, 488 (Ky.1990). Just......
-
Marriage of Dickey, In re, 82CA0256
...of § 14-10-124(1), C.R.S.1973, and that its conclusion is within the broad ambit of its discretion. See generally In re Marriage of Trouth, 631 P.2d 1183 (Colo.App.1981). The trial court is also imbued with broad discretion in determining matters of child support, maintenance, and division ......
-
Legal Protection of Children in Nontraditional Families
...note 36. 41. Coulter v. Coulter, 347 P.2d 492 (Colo. 1959); Devlin v. Huffman, 339 P.2d 1008 (Colo. 1959); In re Marriage of Trouth, 631 P.2d 1183 (Colo.App. 42. Root v. Allen, 377 P.2d 117 (Colo. 1962); Marriage of Dureno, supra, note 36; In re Marriage of Tricamo, 5599 P.2d 273 (Colo.App.......
-
The Constitutionality of Colorado's Grandparent Visitation and Third-party Standing Statutes
...with whom she had resided for five years because effect of leaving stepfather could be damaging). 27. In re Marriage of Trouth, 631 P.2d 1183 (Colo.App. 1981). 28. In re Marriage of Tricamo, 599 P.2d 273 (Colo. 1979). 29. Dureno, supra, note 3. 30. Id. at 1357. 31. Id. 32. C.C.R.S., 892 P.2......