Woodhouse v. District Court In and For Seventeenth Judicial Dist., No. 28304

Docket NºNo. 28304
Citation587 P.2d 1199, 196 Colo. 558
Case DateDecember 18, 1978
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Page 1199

587 P.2d 1199
196 Colo. 558
Julia Morton WOODHOUSE, Petitioner,
v.
The DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR the SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT of the State ofColorado and the Honorable
Abraham Bowling, one of the Judges
thereof, Respondents.
No. 28304.
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.
Dec. 18, 1978.

Grant, McHendrie, Haines & Crouse, P. C., Gary L. Holdeman, Susan B. Price, Denver, for petitioner.

[196 Colo. 559] Roath & Brega, P. C., David W. Stark, Denver, for respondents.

KELLEY, Justice.

This is an original proceeding pursuant to C.A.R. 21, in which petitioner seeks an order prohibiting the Adams County District Court from proceeding in excess of its jurisdiction. We issued a rule to show cause, which we now make absolute.

Petitioner and Richard Harold Heath were divorced in England on July 11, 1974. The divorce decree granted petitioner custody of the two children of the marriage. Mr. Heath was granted "reasonable access" to the children. He moved to the United States in 1974, and both parties have since remarried. The petitioner continues to live in England.

Page 1200

In July of 1977, Mr. Heath visited England. In August of that year, he abducted his son Thomas and brought him to the United States without the consent of the petitioner. Legal action taken by the petitioner in England, resulting in a May 8, 1978, court order directing Mr. Heath to return the child to the petitioner, has been ignored by him. In June, petitioner instituted a habeas corpus action in the Adams County District Court to regain custody of the child.

On June 12, 1978, Mr. Heath appeared with the child at the habeas corpus hearing and moved for a change of custody. The respondent granted the petition for the writ and at the same time assumed jurisdiction over the custody matter. The hearing on the motion for change of custody has been stayed pending our resolution of these proceedings.

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act 1 specifically seeks to avoid the situation with which we are here confronted. Two of the declared "general purposes" of the Act are, (1) avoidance of conflict with courts of other states in child custody matters "which have in the past resulted in the shifting of children from state to state with harmful effects on their well-being," and (2) deterrence of "abductions and other unilateral removals of children undertaken to obtain custody awards." Section 14-13-102(1)(a) and (e), C.R.S.1973.

The respondent court assumed jurisdiction because it felt that the child and one parent have a "significant connection" with the state of Colorado. However, the respondent court disregarded sections 14-13-114 and 14-13-115, C.R.S.1973, which require a court to recognize the valid [196 Colo. 560] custody decrees of other jurisdictions and not to modify such decrees unless the rendering state no longer has jurisdiction, or has declined to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • E.P. v. District Court of Garfield County, Nos. 84SA241
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 4, 1985
    ...853 (1980); Roberts, 198 Colo. 79, 596 P.2d 65; Kraft v. District Court, 197 Colo. 10, 593 P.2d 321 (1979); Woodhouse v. District Court, 196 Colo. 558, 587 P.2d 1199 (1978). One of these other provisions is section 14-13-115(1), 6 C.R.S. (1973) which If a court of another state has made a c......
  • Ehr v. Ehr, No. 78-249
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 19, 1979
    ...follows that the continuing jurisdiction of the rendering court should not be lightly abrogated. See, also Woodhouse v. District Court, 587 P.2d 1199 It appears that in the particular circumstances of this case either Texas or Illinois could have exercised jurisdiction; but no objection was......
  • Custody of Helwig, In re, Nos. 1282S483
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 15, 1982
    ...of the custody decree, a local tribunal generally must defer. See Woodhouse v. District Court In and For Seventeenth Judicial District, 196 Colo. 558, 587 P.2d 1199 (1978)." 395 N.E.2d at 1290-91. See also Green v. Green, 87 Mich.App. 706, 276 N.W.2d 472. This Court also found that the Supe......
  • Marriage of Mosier, Matter of, No. 66704
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • July 10, 1992
    ...Clark v. Kendrick, 670 P.2d 32 (Colo.App.1983); Kraft v. District Court, 197 Colo. 10, 593 P.2d 321 (1979); Woodhouse v. District Court, 196 Colo. 558, 587 P.2d 1199 (1978); Fry v. Ball, 190 Colo. 128, 544 P.2d 402 (1975); Roby v. Nelson, 562 So.2d 375 (Fla.Dist.App.1990); Crump v. Crump, 8......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • E.P. v. District Court of Garfield County, Nos. 84SA241
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 4, 1985
    ...853 (1980); Roberts, 198 Colo. 79, 596 P.2d 65; Kraft v. District Court, 197 Colo. 10, 593 P.2d 321 (1979); Woodhouse v. District Court, 196 Colo. 558, 587 P.2d 1199 (1978). One of these other provisions is section 14-13-115(1), 6 C.R.S. (1973) which If a court of another state has made a c......
  • Ehr v. Ehr, No. 78-249
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 19, 1979
    ...follows that the continuing jurisdiction of the rendering court should not be lightly abrogated. See, also Woodhouse v. District Court, 587 P.2d 1199 It appears that in the particular circumstances of this case either Texas or Illinois could have exercised jurisdiction; but no objection was......
  • Custody of Helwig, In re, Nos. 1282S483
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 15, 1982
    ...of the custody decree, a local tribunal generally must defer. See Woodhouse v. District Court In and For Seventeenth Judicial District, 196 Colo. 558, 587 P.2d 1199 (1978)." 395 N.E.2d at 1290-91. See also Green v. Green, 87 Mich.App. 706, 276 N.W.2d 472. This Court also found that the Supe......
  • Marriage of Mosier, Matter of, No. 66704
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • July 10, 1992
    ...Clark v. Kendrick, 670 P.2d 32 (Colo.App.1983); Kraft v. District Court, 197 Colo. 10, 593 P.2d 321 (1979); Woodhouse v. District Court, 196 Colo. 558, 587 P.2d 1199 (1978); Fry v. Ball, 190 Colo. 128, 544 P.2d 402 (1975); Roby v. Nelson, 562 So.2d 375 (Fla.Dist.App.1990); Crump v. Crump, 8......
  • 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