Title: Wall v. District Court of Tenth Judicial District
Citation: 360 P.2d 452
Docket Number: 19253
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: March 20, 1961

360 P.2d 452 (1961) John R. WALL In Relation to Martha B. Whittenberg v. Robert Edward Whittenberg, Plaintiff in Error, v. DISTRICT COURT OF TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. No. 19253. Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department. March 20, 1961. John R. Wall, pro se. Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Patricia H. Maloy, John E. Bush, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendant in error. MOORE, Justice. Plaintiff in error, to whom we will refer as Wall, is before this court on writ of error directed to a judgment of the district court of Pueblo county adjudging him to be in contempt and assessing a fine of $100. Wall was the attorney for Martha B. Whittenberg in a divorce action pending in said court. By order of the court, custody of the minor child of the parties was granted to the wife with certain visitation rights to the husband. Subsequent to the entry of this order the husband moved the court for temporary custody of the child for the period July 17, 1959, to July 30, 1959, in order that he might take her with him to the home of relatives in Alabama and Georgia during his vacation. This motion came on for hearing before the court on the 17th day of July, 1959. The husband amended his motion on the date of hearing to request the right to visit said child daily during this period, the child having already arrived in Alabama for a visit with her older married half-sister. This visit had been theretofore approved by the court. The only purpose of the motion, as amended, was to suspend the limitations on the visitation rights of the father during the period July 17, to July 30. He testified very briefly that he wanted the right of daily visitation of the child while in Alabama. During the cross-examination by Wall the following took place, inter alia: On July 30, 1959, thirteen days following the hearing, the trial court signed a formal order in the contempt matter which in pertinent part is as follows: "2. That the motion was for permission to let the defendant have temporary custody of the child from July 17, 1959, until July 30, 1959, when he was going to Alabama to visit his folk there; and that the child was already *454 in Florida and was to visit the maternal and paternal relatives while there; that the motion had been changed to ask that he be permitted to visit the child while she was with any of her relatives. Wall knew at the time of the hearing that the child was in the custody of her half-sister in Alabama. The only matter before the court at the hearing was whether the father should be granted the right to visit her there. The court clearly stated that this was the sole issue of the hearing. In spite of this, Wall insisted in making argument and presenting facts which were immaterial and irrelevant to that issue. The appellant had no objection to defendant's prior visitation rights, yet objected to visitation rights being temporarily increased. Rule 107(b), R.C.P.Colo., provides as follows: In Coolidge v. People, 72 Colo. 35, 209 P. 504, 505, we stated, inter alia: "* * * Counsel for the defendants recognize the settled doctrine of this court to be that, in the review of judgments in contempt, this court goes no farther than to inquire if the court pronouncing sentence had jurisdiction of the parties and of the offense charged. Notwithstanding this concession of counsel they have brought up the evidence, or some portion thereof. Just why they so earnestly ask this court to consider it in connection with the pending *455 review, is not entirely clear. * * *" In Fort v. Co-Operative Farmers' Exchange, 81 Colo. 431, 256 P. 319, 323, we find the following: The instant case is controlled by the rule announced in the above-cited cases. The judgment is affirmed. DAY and FRANTZ, JJ., concur.