Court Opinion

ID: 9548811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:09:06.999082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:26.772242
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent. In my view, the majority emasculates Sec. 46-1 -3( 1 )(c), Colo. Sess. Laws 1973, by its interpretation of that section. The statute requires that both the child and the parents have a significant connection with the state before the Colorado court is competent to decide the custody matter. Here, admittedly, the child per se has no conceivable nexus to Colorado. His only significant contact is that his parents live here. But that is already required by the statute as an element separate and apart from the child’s nexus. It cannot, of itself, therefore, supply the nexus required of the child.
Further, I do not believe that one can vest jurisdiction in a court by illegally supplying the fact that gives jurisdiction. I would not bend the processes of this judicial system to one who violates a valid order. If I were a judge in another jurisdiction and had before me what the majority hold today is the law in Colorado, I would not permit visitation to Colorado of any child under my jurisdiction.
MR. JUSTICE KELLEY and MR. JUSTICE GROVES authorize me to say that they join in this dissent.