People in Interest of L. B., In re
| Decision Date | 19 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. C--75,C--75 |
| Parties | In re the PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of L.B., M.B. a/k/a V. B., Children. Upon the Petition of B.C., Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning L.V.B., Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Max P. Zall, City Atty., Frank A. Elzi, Robert A. Powell, Ronald Schultz, Asst. City Atty., Denver, for petitioner-appellee.
Kaufman, Greenwald & Machol, Jack Greenwald, Denver, for respondent-appellant.
In its Petition for Writ of Certiorari the petitioner alleged that the Court of Appeals in its opinion, 29 Colo.App. 101, 482 P.2d 1010, had (1) decided a question of substance in a way probably not in accord with applicable decisions of this court, and further, that the Court of Appeals had (2) interpreted the Children's Code in a manner which results in the denial of equal protection of the law to illegitimate children, in violation of the constitution, citing Munn v. Munn, 168 Colo. 76, 450 P.2d 68. We granted certiorari.
The resolution of both issues involves the construction of two articles of the Children's Code, namely 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 22--6--1, et seq. ('Paternity Proceedings') and 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 22--7--1, et seq. ('Support Proceedings'), referred to herein respectively as Article 6 and Article 7. The question is whether the Court of Appeals was correct when it held that the exclusive means of adjudicating contested paternity is under Article 6, or whether the issue of paternity may be adjudicated also under Article 7, as an adjunct of support proceedings. Our examination of the Children's Code and the authorities cited by the petitioner in support of its position lead us to the conclusion that the Court of Appeals correctly decided the issues.
A brief statement of the facts is necessary to a discussion of the applicable law. In January, 1967, a 'Petition in Contributing to Dependency' was filed by the petitioner against the respondent under a previous statute. In that petition respondent was alleged to be the father of petitioner's two children, aged 8 and 9 years. Service of process was quashed August, 1967, and the petitioner filed an amended petition under the present Article 6. The Juvenile Court dismissed the amended petition on the basis of 22--6--1(2), a limitation statute which reads:
'No proceeding under this article shall be initiated after the child is five years old, unless paternity has been acknowledged by the father in writing or by furnishing support.'
In May, 1968, a new 'Petition in Support Proceedings' under Article 7 was filed. Respondent answered that contested paternity coud not be adjudicated under paternity could not be adjudicated under Juvenile Court denied the request for a jury trial, proceeded to hear the evidence in support of the petition, determined that the respondent was the father of petitioner's children, and entered an order for their support. As indicated above, the Court of Appeals reversed.
As noted by the Court of Appeals, the adoption of the Children's Code followed an in-depth study by the Colorado Legislative Council (Research Publication No. 111, December, 1966). The text of the report indicates that it was the intention of the General Assembly that Articles 6 and 7 were to perform separate and distinct functions. The title of Article 6 is 'Paternity Proceedings.' The title of Article 7 is 'Support Proceedings.' The text of the report states that the purpose of a paternity proceeding is to establish accurately the identity of the father of a child. It states that 'it is not intended to be a general support statute.' The text in reference to Article 7 indicates that it is designed to be a simple proceeding to require parents to support their children. As we read 22--7--1(1), the inclusion of fathers of illegitimate children presupposes the prior establishment of the filial relationship. It is a general statute to compel support by Any 'legally responsible person.' The comment in the Legislative Council report on 22--6--1(2) is significant. It reads:
Although this court in Ortega v. Portales, 134 Colo. 537, 307 P.2d 193, held that there was a continuing liability upon the father of a legitimate or illegitimate child to provide support and that the failure on the part of any person to act within a period of limitation could not deprive an infant of its right to continuing parental care and support, we have concluded that that decision is no longer applicable since the enactment of the Children's Code. It is clear from the above quoted comment as to 22--6--1(2) that the General Assembly intended to place a time limit within which proceedings could be brought to determine paternity where the putative father contests the mother's allegation of paternity. It should be noted that the predecessor statute (C.R.S. '53, 22--6--1) restricted the right to file a complaint against the putative father exclusively to the mother, whereas the Children's Code (1967 Perm.Supp., Supp., C.R.S.1963, 22--6--1) grants the right 'to establish the paternity of a child and to compel support under this article (to) the mother . . ., the child's guardian of the person, or if the mother or the child is a public charge, (to) the county department of welfare.'
We also note that in Ortega the Juvenile Court held that the claim was barred by the general three-year statute of limitations. No mention was made of the one-year limitation in Article 6. This court in determining whether the statute of limitations barred the prosecution of the act relied on the then existing statute relating to dependent and neglected children which imposed a continuing liability upon the father of a legitimate or illegitimate child to provide support until the child attained the age of 18 years. What conclusion the court might have come to had the one-year statute of limitations in C.R.S. '53, 22--6--6 been raised is not clear, but we assume that it would have relied on Wamsley v. People, 64 Colo. 521, 173 P. 425. In that case this court held that although a prosecution under one statute is barred because not brought in time, an action could be maintained under another statute for failure to support the illegitimate child. Neither Ortega nor Wamsley indicates that the statute of limitations with which they were dealing was the one within the same article in which the right being pursued was created. This, in our opinion, has some significance in our disposition of this issue.
In the statutory scheme adopted in the Children's Code it is abundantly clear that the General Assembly intended Article 6 as the only vehicle for establishing paternity. For instance, 22--1--6(4)(a)(i) and (iii) grant the right to trial by jury in paternity proceedings under Article 6; this is not available to the putative father under Article 7. Also, under Section 4 of Article 6(22--6--4), upon the motion of the father, blood grouping tests may be ordered by the court and received in evidence, as provided in 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 52--1--27; this is not permissible under Article 7.
Although Article 7 is not the only article authorizing the court to issue support orders, it seems clear to us that it was not contemplated that any issue other than support was contemplated in a proceeding under Article 7. It presupposes that paternity has been established either by an Article 6 proceeding or by acknowledgment of paternity by the father in writing or by furnishing support. 22--6--1.
We now turn to the constitutional issue of equal protection of the law and our opinion in Munn v. Munn, 168 Colo. 76, 450 P.2d 68.
In Munn the putative father contended that C.R.S. '53, 22--6--3, which delegated to the jury the responsibility for assessing damages for the support of the child, and directed 'the same to be paid annually or otherwise for any term of years not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wiedemer
... ... We made clear in Germany, 674 P.2d at 350, that although the State has a legitimate interest in preserving the finality of criminal convictions and in furtherance of that interest "may enact reasonable requirements" for collaterally challenging such convictions, "it may not do so without providing a criminally accused meaningful opportunity to challenge allegedly unconstitutional ... ...
-
State ex rel. Krupke v. Witkowski, 2-59212
... ... Hernandez v. Anaya, 66 N.M. 1, 340 P.2d 838 (1959); People on Complaint of Mendes v. Pennyfeather, 11 Misc.2d 546, 174 N.Y.S.2d 766 (1958); Deckert v. Burns, 75 S.D. 229, 62 N.W.2d 879 (1954). There was no ... Because of its importance in future litigation, we choose to consider and decide the constitutional issues. See In the Interest of Hochmuth, Iowa, 251 N.W.2d 484, 488. Our task is made difficult as appellant cites only Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535, 93 S.Ct. 872, 35 L.Ed.2d 56 ... ...
-
R. McG. v. J. W.
... ... Section 19-6-101, C.R.S.1973; see People in the Interest of L.B., 29 Colo.App. 101, 482 P.2d 1010 (1976), aff'd, 179 Colo. 11, 498 P.2d 1157 (1972), appeal dismissed mem., 410 U.S. 976, 93 ... ...
-
Cessna v. Montgomery
... ... holding, the court announced a dual test essential to the evaluation of distinctions based on an illegitimacy status: What legitimate State interest does the classification promote? What fundamental personal rights might the classification endanger? (406 US. 164, 173, 92 S.Ct. 1400, 1405, 31 ... 808; Pittman v. United States (9th Cir. 1965), 341 F.2d 739; Johnson v. Industrial Com. (1972), 53 Ill.2d 23, 289 N.E.2d 627; In re People in Interest of L. B. (1972), 179 Colo. 11, 498 P.2d 1157, Cert. denied, 410 U.S. 976, 93 S.Ct. 1497, 36 L.Ed.2d 173; Shaw v. Zabel (1974), 267 Or ... ...
-
Equal Protection for the Illegitimate Child: Uniform Parentage Act of 1977
...as amended. 47. C.R.S. 1973, § 19-6-109, as amended. 48. C.R.S. 1973, § 19-6-107(4), as amended. 49. People in re B.C. v. L.V.B., 179 Colo. 11, 498 P.2d, 1157 (1972), see dissent by Pringle, C. J.; and People in re G.C. v. R.M. ___, Colo. App. ___, 548 P.2d 1282 (1975). 50. 179 Colo. 11, 49......