Case Title: Anderson v. Anderson

Citation: 445 P.2d 397

Docket Number: 

State: colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Date: 1968-09-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
445 P.2d 397 (1968) Gilbert A. ANDERSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. Judith Ann ANDERSON, Defendant in Error. No. 23471. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. September 30, 1968. Richard D. Lamm, Denver, for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error. MOORE, Chief Justice. Plaintiff in error will be referred to as Gilbert and defendant in error will be mentioned as Judith. The cause is here on writ of error directed to a judgment awarding custody of a minor child to Judith, fixing visitation rights to Gilbert, and awarding attorney's fees. Judith obtained a noncontested decree of divorce on September 25, 1967. Prior to the date set for hearing on final orders regarding custody and support money, the trial court ordered that an investigation and report be made by the district court probation department concerning the ability of Gilbert and Judith to serve the best interests of the child. This procedure was followed pursuant to C.R.S.1963, 46-1-5(7) which became effective on July 1, 1967. In pertinent part it provides as follows: The rule of the district court which was adopted prior to enactment of the above statute, and which has not been repealed, reads as follows: In the instant action the probation department made an investigation and a report. The report is not made a part of the record before this court and we can only speculate upon the contents thereof from the "Exceptions to Probation Report" which was filed by council for Gilbert on January 9, 1968, two days prior to the time fixed for the hearing on the issues of custody, support money, and attorney's fees. When the matter came on for hearing counsel for Gilbert attempted to call witnesses to establish the asserted unfitness of Judith to have custody of the child, and to take issue with conclusions contained in the report of the probation department. The trial court refused to hear the witnesses. Counsel in explaining his position stated to the trial court: In refusing the request of counsel for Gilbert to call witnesses, the trial court stated, inter alia: Counsel for Gilbert strenuously objected and pointed out that at no time in the entire case had any court conducted a hearing to determine the relative fitness of either of the parents to have custody of the child. *399 He stated, and the statement is not challenged, "We have never had an opportunity to present our evidence at any time." Counsel made offers of proof, the truth or falsity of which would bear directly upon the fitness of the parties to have permanent custody of the child. It is clear that the trial court relied upon the report and afforded no opportunity for Gilbert to offer evidence in explanation thereof, or to disprove any conclusions based on hearsay that were contained therein. The act of the legislature purporting to authorize the trial court to call upon the probation department for a report concerning "the ability of each party to serve the best interest of the child," and further directing that "Each report shall be considered by the court in making the award of custody," cannot be so construed as to deny due process which includes the right to be heard in open court and to have a determination of issues based upon competent evidence offered by persons who submit themselves to cross-examination. As was stated by the Supreme Court of California in Fewel v. Fewel, 23 Cal. 2d 431, 144 P.2d 592: Objections and Exceptions were filed to the report of the probation department. It was a hearsay document and if the conclusions reached therein were objected to by either party, it would be necessary that competent evidence, upon which the conclusions were based, be presented in open court. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.