Metzger v. People, 13838.

• Decision Date: 06 January 1936
• Docket Number: 13838.
• Citation: 53 P.2d 1189,98 Colo. 133
• Parties: METZGER v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

53 P.2d 1189

98 Colo. 133

METZGER v. PEOPLE.

No. 13838.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

January 6, 1936

Error to Juvenile Court, City and County of Denver; Stanley H Johnson, Judge.

Proceeding by the People, in the interest of the unborn child of Genevieve Conzone, against Harry Metzger. To review an adverse judgment, the defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

B. A. Gates, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

F. E Dickerson, T. J. Morrissey, and Charles D. Bromley, all of Denver, for defendants in error.

BOUCK Justice.

In the juvenile court of Denver a proceeding was instituted against the respondent, plaintiff in error here, by the filing of a petition which alleges: 'That the * * * unborn child of Genevieve Conzone is a dependent unborn child for the following reasons and causes, to-wit: That it has not proper parental care; that it is entitled to support and care by its father [the respondent] and its father * * * has failed to support or care for said unborn child, by failing and refusing to provide for the support of the mother of said unborn child unless she will consent to relinquish the child after its birth or to other plans which do not meet her approval. * * * That the * * * respondent * * * has encouraged, caused or contributed to the dependency of said child, in the manner and in the particulars following to-wit: Said respondent is the father of said unborn child, who is dependent as herein above set forth, and is able to support and care for said unborn child, and is able to support and care for the mother of said unborn child during her maternity period, and has knowledge of the condition of dependency of said unborn child as aforesaid, and he has failed to provide said unborn child and the mother of said unborn child with the proper support and maintenance as aforesaid.'

A jury trial was duly had. The respondent was found guilty and was ordered to pay a specified percentage of his earnings to the expectant mother. By motions to quash and for a new trial and for arrest of judgment, the respondent attacked the proceedings on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction and on the ground that the statute upon which the proceedings were based is unconstitutional when applied, as here, to an unborn child. The two grounds are in the present case closely related, and we shall deal with them together.

The laws underlying the jurisdiction of the juvenile court are a matter of gradual growth, following in general outline the development of modern principles within this important field.

The original statute is entitled 'an act concerning dependent and neglected children.' Sess.Laws 1907, c. 168, p. 361. By section 1 thereof, which was section 602, C.L. 1921, dependent and neglected children were expressly made to include 'any child under 16 years of age who is dependent upon the public for support, or who is destitute, homeless or abandoned; or who has not proper parental care or guardianship; or who habitually begs or receives alms; or who is found living in any house of ill-fame, or with any vicious or disreputable persons; or whose home by reason of neglect, cruelty or depravity on the part of its parents, guardian or other person in whose care it may be, is an unfit place for such child; or whose environment is such as to warrant the state, in the interest of the child, in assuming its guardianship.'

In 1923, an act was passed to amend the aforesaid act. Thereby the definition of a dependent or neglected child was changed. The new act provided as follows:

'For the purpose of this Act, the words 'dependent child' or 'neglected child' shall mean any child under the age of eighteen years who [answers the above quoted description, with slight verbal changes and additions] * * *; or who, in the opinion of the court, is entitled to support or care by its parent or parents, where it appears that the parent or parents are failing or refusing to support or care for said child; * * * or whose environment is such, or about whose custody a controversy may be such as to warrant the State, in the interest of the child, in assuming or determining its guardianship, or in determining what may be for the best interest of said child. * * *

'The laws of this State concerning dependent or neglected children or persons who cause, encourage or contribute thereto, shall be construed to include all children under the age mentioned herein from the time of their conception and during the months Before birth.' Sess. Laws 1923, c. 77, § 1, p. 204.

It is contended that this amendatory act violates section 21 of article 5 in the Constitution of Colorado, which says 'No bill, except general appropriation bills, shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title;...