Marriage of Trouth, In re, No. 80CA0733

Docket NºNo. 80CA0733
Citation631 P.2d 1183
Case DateJune 11, 1981
CourtCourt of Appeals of Colorado

Page 1183

631 P.2d 1183
In re the MARRIAGE OF Steven F. TROUTH, Appellee,
and
Lois Trouth, Appellant.
No. 80CA0733.
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.
June 11, 1981.

Page 1184

Worth F. Shrimpton, Craig, for appellee.

Feldhamer, Fischer & Associates, P. C., Mark J. Fischer, Hayden, for appellant.

KELLY, Judge.

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

Page 1185

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Custody of C.C.R.S., In re, No. 92CA1142
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • 18 Noviembre 1993
    ...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, No. 92CA0740
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • 17 Diciembre 1992
    ...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 stepchild is no......
  • Brandon S.S., In Interest of, No. 92-1076
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 3 Noviembre 1993
    ...(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 21 Quisenberry v. Quisenberry, 785 S.W.2d 485, 488 (Ky.1990). Justice Lambert filed a......
  • Marriage of Dickey, In re, No. 82CA0256
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • 21 Octubre 1982
    ...§ 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 The trial court is also imbued with broad discretion in determining matters of child support, maintenance, and division of property, and its......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Custody of C.C.R.S., In re, No. 92CA1142
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • 18 Noviembre 1993
    ...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, No. 92CA0740
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • 17 Diciembre 1992
    ...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 stepchild is no......
  • Brandon S.S., In Interest of, No. 92-1076
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 3 Noviembre 1993
    ...(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 21 Quisenberry v. Quisenberry, 785 S.W.2d 485, 488 (Ky.1990). Justice Lambert filed a......
  • Marriage of Dickey, In re, No. 82CA0256
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • 21 Octubre 1982
    ...§ 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 The trial court is also imbued with broad discretion in determining matters of child support, maintenance, and division of property, and its......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT