Opinion
Sept. 22, 1970.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Adams & Furedy, Erick K. Furedy, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Daniel, McCain & Brown, Leonard H. McCain, Brighton, for defendant in error.
SILVERSTEIN, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal by S.K. from an order of the trial court terminating her parental rights in and to her eleven year old son, D.L. She asserts as error that the trial court abused its discretion and that the pertinent provisions of the Colorado Children's Code, namely, 1967 Perm.Supp. C.R.S.1963, 22--3--11, were not complied with. We do not agree and therefore affirm the trial court.
A full review of the evidence would serve no useful purpose.
The record shows that in March, 1967, a dependency hearing was held and decree in dependency entered. By that decree D.L. and his two sisters were declared to be dependent and neglected children and made wards of the court. Also in that decree the court found that the mother, S.K., had abandoned the children in December, 1965; that the father was too ill to care for them; and that the children had been in a foster home since 1965. The court ordered that D.L. and one sister be continued to be placed in a foster home. Custody of his teen-aged sister was awarded to S.K. No appeal was taken from this order.
The order appealed from was entered after a hearing held in October, 1969. The court reiterated the findings of the 1967 decree relative to S.K.'s abandonment of her children and to the placing of D.L. in a foster home. It further found that S.K.'s custody of D.L.'s sister was inadequate; that D.L.'s mother had contributed nothing to D. L.'s support although she had adequate funds therefor; that S.K., because of her past conduct, indifference, and lack of concern, did not appear to be a fit and proper person to have permanent custody of D.L.; that D.L. had the opportunity of adoptive placement in a good home, which, if lost, would make D.L.'s future uncertain and concluded that the best interests of D.L. would be served by terminating the parental rights of S. K. and of D. L.'s father, who consented to such termination.
The evidence amply supports the findings and conclusions of the trial court. 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 22--3--11(2)(a) provides:
'The court may enter a decree terminating all parental rights of one or both parents in the child when it finds that the best interests and welfare of the child so require.'
As was stated in Johnson v. People, Colo., 459 P.2d 579, 582,
'The primary and controlling issue is the determination of what will serve the best interests of the child. This is the rule which has consistently prevailed in Colorado and elsewhere in child custody cases. See Averch v. Averch, 104 Colo. 365, 90 P.2d 962. It applies with greater reason, and was clearly meant to apply in proceedings under the Colorado Children's Code, where a child has been declared dependent and neglected, and where the same evidence and other evidence is presented at the same hearing which amply supports the disposition that parental rights be terminated. This hearing, in our view, was conducted in compliance with the declared purposes and requirements of the Colorado Children's Code.'
Judgment affirmed.
COYTE and DUFFORD, JJ., concur.