Schierenbeck v. Minor
367 P.2d 333, 148 Colo. 582 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A child born to a married woman is presumed to be the legitimate child of her husband. To overcome this presumption and establish another man as the father, the mother must present sufficient evidence proving that her husband had no access to her during the period of conception.
Facts:
- Mary K. Minor, a 20-year-old woman, was married to Ronald Edward Sedillo.
- On September 7, 1959, while still married, Minor engaged in sexual intercourse with Schierenbeck, who was 16 years old.
- One week later, on September 14, 1959, Minor's husband, Sedillo, obtained a decree in Denver annulling his marriage to her.
- Minor gave birth to a child, Sherrie Lynn, on June 5, 1960.
- Minor testified at trial that she did not know the current whereabouts of her former husband, Sedillo.
Procedural Posture:
- A dependency proceeding was initiated in a Colorado trial court to determine the paternity of the child, Sherrie Lynn Minor.
- The trial court found that Schierenbeck was the father of the child.
- Schierenbeck, as the appellant, sought review of the trial court's adjudication from the Supreme Court of Colorado.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a mother's testimony that she does not know her husband's whereabouts, without more, constitute sufficient evidence of non-access to overcome the legal presumption that a child born during the marriage is the legitimate child of the husband?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Frantz
No. A mother's testimony that she does not know her husband's whereabouts is insufficient to overcome the strong legal presumption that a child born to a married woman is the legitimate child of her husband. The law presumes a child born during a marriage is legitimate, and to rebut this presumption, the party challenging it must prove the husband 'had no access to her during the time when, according to the course of nature, he could be the father of the child.' Minor's evidence on non-access was 'wanting in probative value.' In fact, the evidence that her husband, Sedillo, was in nearby Denver to obtain an annulment decree around the time of conception affirmatively works against her claim, suggesting he did have access. Because the rights of a minor child are at stake, the case must be remanded to fully explore the question of the husband's access.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary standard required to overcome the strong legal presumption of legitimacy for a child born within a marriage. It clarifies that a mother's mere assertion of ignorance regarding her husband's location fails to meet the burden of proving non-access. The court's choice to remand the case for further fact-finding, rather than issue a final judgment for Schierenbeck, underscores the judiciary's role as a protector of minors' interests. This approach ensures a child's right to parental support is not jeopardized by inadequate presentation of evidence by the adult parties.
