Wheeler v. District Court In and For City and County of Denver, 26459
| Decision Date | 23 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 26459,26459 |
| Citation | 526 P.2d 658,186 Colo. 218 |
| Parties | Charles Wilson WHEELER, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR the CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER and the State of Colorado, and the Honorable Gilbert A. Alexander, Judge of said Court, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Myrick & Newton, P.C., Barrie G. Sullivan, II, William E. Myrick, Denver, for petitioner.
James W. Creamer, Jr. & Associates, P.C., James W. Creamer, Jr., Mark A. Lambertson, Denver, for respondents.
This is an original proceeding brought under C.A.R. 21. Petitioner Wheeler seeks a writ of mandamus to require the respondent court to conduct a hearing concerning custody of two children domiciled with him in Colorado. Proceedings in the lower court were held under Colo.Sess. Laws 1973, ch. 163, 46--6--1 et seq., at 556, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (hereinafter 'the Act'). The court, instead of conducting a hearing, made summary disposition, ruling that it had no jurisdiction but to honor the Illinois court decree. Because this is a new act and a matter of first impression as well as of great public importance, we issued a rule to show cause why the court should not reinstate the petition and conduct a hearing thereon. The answer has been made and the issues framed. We make the rule absolute.
Petitioner Wheeler and Sandra Kay Wheeler were divorced in Illinois in January, 1969. The wife received custody of their three children. The custody decree was changed in July of 1969 and Wheeler was given custody. In early July, 1973 the Illinois court gave Wheeler permission to move his domicile and the children to Colorado, subject to visitation rights. On July 6, 1973, one day after Wheeler moved into this state, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act was approved.
In August, 1973 the Illinois court changed the custody of one child to the mother; the child has since been returned voluntarily to her. In November, 1973 the Illinois court in an ex parte proceeding again modified the custody decree, ordering return of the other two children to their mother in Illinois. She filed an action against Wheeler in Denver district court in March, 1974 to enforce the Illinois decree. Wheeler answered and filed a cross-petition for affirmation of custody in himself. The lower court dismissed his petition, construing section 46--6--6 of the Act to mean the Illinois court had continuing jurisdiction, although noting this was a 'classic example' of what the Act is designed to prevent.
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act evolved from the growing public concern that thousands of children are shifted from state to state while their parents battle over custody. The harm to these children is enormous. They have little chance to develop a sense of belonging or close personal attachments, so essential in the formative years. The underlying policy of the entire Act is to eliminate jurisdictional fishing with children as bait. To give the Act any teeth, this policy must be uppermost when construing the statute.
The Illinois modification of its custody decree, stripping Wheeler of custody of his children, took place after the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act became law. Wheeler, a Colorado domiciliary, is governed by that Act. His motion for affirmation of custody in himself alleges the Illinois court lacked jurisdiction to modify. He is essentially asking the trial court to go beyond the face of the decree and make a judgment on which state has the more significant contacts to determine custody.
The trial court construed section 46--6--6 as a bar to its authority. That section concerns Simultaneous proceedings in other states. It provides that a state where the children may be (such as Colorado) nevertheless has no jurisdiction, when a proceeding concerning custody of the children is Pending in another state at the time of filing the petition.
In our view, section 46--6--6 does not apply. There was no proceeding pending in Illinois. Once a custody decree has been rendered in one state, jurisdiction is determined by other sections under the Act. See Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 204 (1968) (hereinafter 'Handbook').
We find section 46--6--3 to be significant. It contains two major jurisdictional tests which the trial court should have applied.
Section 46--6--3(1)(a) and (b) allows modification of a prior foreign child...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marquiss v. Marquiss
...provided by the Uniform Act accorded flexibility built around the children's "home state." Wheeler v. District Court In and For City and County of Denver, 186 Colo. 218, 526 P.2d 658 (1974); In re LeMond, 182 Ind.App. 626, 395 N.E.2d 1287 (1979); Brooks v. Brooks, 20 Or.App. 43, 530 P.2d 54......
-
Petition of Giblin
...reluctant to advise the use of maneuver of doubtful legality may place their clients at a decided disadvantage.' See Wheeler v. District Court, 526 P.2d 658, 660 (Colo.1974), also involving an Illinois court, and a situation not unlike the one before us, where, the court characterized the a......
-
Spaulding v. Spaulding
...that the underlying purpose of the Act is to "eliminate jurisdictional fishing with children as bait." Wheeler v. District Court, 186 Colo. 218, 220, 526 P.2d 658, 660 (1974). It is imperative that we apply the provisions of this Act so as to further these policies. Recognizing the compelli......
-
Cricenti v. Weiland
... ... No. 96-P-1345 ... Appeals Court of Massachusetts, ... Middlesex ... Argued Jan ... relating to pending proceedings.) See Wheeler v. Dist. Court, 186 Colo. 218, 221, 526 P.2d 658 ... ...
-
ARTICLE 13
...the forum determining custody has a significant connection and optimum access to relevant evidence about them. Wheeler v. District Court, 186 Colo. 218, 526 P.2d 658 (1974). Jurisdictional considerations under subsection (1)(b) are governed by the best interest of the child and by the child......
-
ARTICLE 13 UNIFORM CHILD-CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT
...the forum determining custody has a significant connection and optimum access to relevant evidence about them. Wheeler v. District Court, 186 Colo. 218, 526 P.2d 658 (1974). Jurisdictional considerations under subsection (1)(b) are governed by the best interest of the child and by the child......
-
Waking the Dormant Pkpa in Colorado
...a Texas decree entitled to enforcement under PKPA). 14. See, e.g., Nistico v. District Court, 791 P.2d 1128, 1130, 1132 (Colo. 1990). 15. 526 P.2d 658 (Colo. 1974). 16. 620 P.2d 11, 14 (Colo. 1980). 17. 643 P.2d 783, 786 (Colo.App. 1981). 18. Fry, supra, note 3. 19. Id. at 406. [Emphasis ad......
-
Family Law Newsletter
...it. The first two cases permitted the Colorado court to take jurisdiction to determine a change of custody. Wheeler v. District Court, 186 Colo. 218, 526 P.2d 658 (1974), ruled that where the custodygranting state specifically contemplated an out-of-state move by the custodial parent, juris......