Court Opinion

ID: 9535209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:46:48.178318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:11.490354
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Frantz
specially concurring:
Although Mrs. Tucker is not a party to this suit, she verified the information filed against Mr. Tucker charging him with violation of the non-support statute of this state. C.R.S. ’53, 43-1-1, et seq. This type of proceeding *589is sui generis, and because of its nature and character, and the relief that may be afforded thereunder, the wife occupies a status different from that of a complainant in other criminal cases. Recognizing this difference, I am prompted to make comment concerning this particular case.
I yield to the majority opinion reluctantly because, as I view this case Mrs. Tucker has been infinitesimally within the bounds of the law on a number of occasions. A reading of the record persuades me that she has used the law at times as a means of harrying Mr. Tucker,' and even impairing his ability to perform his obligations toward her and their children. The pattern of her conduct engenders more than a shadowy inference of her motives.
Nevertheless, she has resorted to legal measures, ostensibly 'for legal ends. If many of her actions, affecting Mr. Tucker, were motivated by malice or an intent to make his life unpleasant and to disable him in the performance of his obligations, she knows whether this is true while I can only entertain an inference of the fact.
I can only remind her that in the law no person can build successfully a superstructure of right on moral wrong.
Mr. Chief Justice Moore and Mr. Justice Holland concur herein.