Title: Allen v. Huffman
Citation: 307 P.2d 802
Docket Number: 17952
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: February 25, 1957

307 P.2d 802 (1957) Leonard L. ALLEN, Plaintiff in Error, v. Hursel Franklin HUFFMAN and Vesta Nadine Huffman, Defendants in Error. No. 17952. Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department. February 25, 1957. Rehearing Denied March 18, 1957. Allen &amp; Strain, La Junta, for plaintiff in error. Leon H. Snyder, Norman E. Walton, Colorado Springs, for defendants in error. MOORE, Chief Justice. We will refer to the parties by name. Vesta Huffman is the sister of Leonard Allen, and Hursel Huffman is Vesta's husband. Mr. and Mrs. Huffman filed a petition in the county court of El Paso county in which they sought a decree for the adoption of Linda Lou Allen the eight and one-half year old daughter of Leonard Allen. The petition was not accompanied by the written consent of the father. It was alleged in the petition that the mother of the child was dead and that Leonard Allen, the father, "has failed, refused or neglected to provide maintenance and support for said child for more than one year prior to the filing of this Petition and that by reason thereof your petitioners allege that the said Leonard Allen has abandoned the said Linda Lou Allen, * *." Leonard Allen, by written motion which the trial court considered and which we treat as an answer to the petition, moved the court for an order dismissing the petition and directing the Huffmans to deliver the custody of the child to him. In this instrument *803 he alleged: That the mother of Linda Lou met her death in June 1947 in an explosion and fire in her home; that following the fire and death of the mother, his family volunteered to take care of the small children left motherless, consisting of a daughter Barbara, a son Michael, and Linda Lou; that one of his sisters took Barbara, his mother took the son Michael, and petitioners took the baby, Linda Lou; that the son Michael became ill and died in December, 1949; that he remarried and began the re-establishment of his home in 1951 and took Barbara into his home where she has remained ever since; that when he started to take Linda Lou, his sister Mrs. Huffman asked that Linda be allowed to remain in the home of petitioners until she was a little older and he was better established; that he had contributed various means and money for the support of Linda until the petitioners asked to allow them to take her as a dependent on their income tax returns; that he had furnished incidental items and clothing for her; that he had visited Linda with the Huffmans at Colorado Springs and she, Linda, had visited him at his home near Cheraw, Colorado, many times including the entire week beginning June 12, 1955; that she was to return to his home later in the summer and he went to bring her down in July 1955 when he was informed she could never visit him unless he consented to her adoption by the Huffmans, the petitioners herein; that he had never abandoned the child; that he had not failed or refused to support her without cause, but had refused to consent to her adoption by the Huffmans; that he desired to have Linda in his home full time and that she needed his companionship and that of her natural sister, Barbara. The case was tried to the court and findings were entered to the effect that consent by the father to adoption of the child was not necessary because he had failed, without cause to provide reasonable support for Linda Lou for a period of one year or more, and had abandoned her, and that "the consent of the natural father of the child should be taken against him." The pertinent statute is C.R.S. 1953, 4-1-6, from which we quote the following: There is no conflict in the evidence on any question of fact material to the determination of this controversy. Suffice it to say that a thorough analysis of the record discloses that every allegation set forth in the motion filed by Leonard Allen in which he prayed for dismissal of the Huffmans' petition and an order directing the return of the child to his own home was established by competent evidence. In no particular was the truth of this evidence challenged in any matter material to the question to be determined. In all such matters the evidence offered by the Huffmans is in agreement with that offered by Allen, and tends to corroborate his statement of the controlling facts. In Foley v. Carnesi, 123 Colo. 533, 232 P.2d 186, 187, 24 A.L.R.2d 1123, we recognized the universally accepted rule that compliance with the provisions of the adoption statute are mandatory, and we there held that where the written consent of the natural parent was not "subscribed and sworn to" as required by the statute, a decree of adoption would not be sustained. See also Storey v. Shumaker, 131 Colo. 131, 279 P.2d 1057. Is there sufficient evidence in the record in the instant case to sustain the finding of the trial court that Leonard Allen abandoned his daughter, or that he "failed without cause to provide reasonable support" for her? The question is answered in the negative. The uncontradicted evidence shows beyond question that there was no abandonment by the father. With reference to the question of failure "without cause" to provide reasonable support, we deem it sufficient to direct attention to two opinions of this court which govern the disposition of this case. In Foxgruber v. Hansen, 128 Colo. 511, 265 P.2d 233, 235, the question was, whether the natural mother had abandoned her child and failed to provide support as a result of which she should suffer the loss of parental rights in dependency proceedings. We quote from the opinion in that case as follows: In Carrera v. Kelley, 131 Colo. 421, 283 P.2d 162, another situation was presented in which was claimed that a child was "dependent" by reason of abandonment on the part of the mother, and by reason of the failure of the mother to provide support. In that case there were circumstances of harsh treatment visited upon the mother by the trial court order, wholly absent in the case at bar, which prompted sharp language from this court in disapproval of the lower court action in holding the child to be dependent. In that opinion we stated, inter alia: "In the case of Foxgruber v. Hansen, 128 Colo. 511, 265 P.2d 233, a case concerning dependency proceedings before this same trial court, attention was called to numerous court cases which had construed our dependency statutes and announced rules for the guidance of courts having jurisdiction in dependency cases. Such announced rules apparently were not welcomed, because *805 we again find that they were unheeded. A process to stop this one-way traffic with the rights of parents concerning custody of their children should be evolved. * * * Except only when it is essential and of paramount necessity in the best interests of the child itself to provide otherwise, the law recognizes and enforces the right to the custody of their own children which nature gives to parents. In this connection we quote from the leading case of Wilson v. Mitchell, 48 Colo. 454, 111 P. 21, 26, 30 L.R.A.,N.S., 507, the following: We can well appreciate the concern of Mr. and Mrs. Huffman and have no difficulty in understanding their affection for Linda, and their desire to continue the relationship that has existed in the past. The simple answer is that under the admitted facts there is no support in the law for their contentions. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the adoption petition and grant respondent's motion for custody of the child. HOLLAND, HALL and FRANTZ, JJ., concur.