Opinion
Robert L. Pitler, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
George J. Cacic, pro se.
PIERCE, Judge.
The parties appear here in reverse of their order of appearance below. They will be referred to by their trial court designations or by name. This is an appeal of a divorce action in which the custody of the parties' twin daughters was awarded to the plaintiff father. On writ of error, the custody order was set aside in Cacic v. Cacic, 164 Colo. 103, 432 P.2d 768, when the Supreme Court held that the lower court's findings were inadequate, stating:
'* * * The court did not make any finding of fact or even assert the conclusion of law that the mother was unfit to have custody of the minor daughters of the parties. The findings were also deficient in that there were no facts set forth or determination made that it was for the best interests of the children that their custody be given to the father. In order to award custody to any party, such findings and conclusions are necessary.'
The award of custody was set aside and the cause was remanded to the trial court with directions that:
'* * * after affording the parties opportunity to present additional evidence as may now be pertinent, enter findings of fact and conclusions of law consonant therewith.'
Thereafter, the trial court afforded the parties and opportunity to present additional evidence. Based upon a record of the original proceeding, the trial court found that the mother was not a fit person to have the custody of the children; that the children would be endangered by the mother's custody; and further, that the best interests and welfare of the children would be served by granting custody to the father. In regard to the new hearing, the trial court concluded that there were no facts of a material nature which would change its original decision awarding custody to the plaintiff father.
The sole question for our determination in the instant case is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's judgment that the children's best interests, under all the circumstances, would best be served by the custody order herein. Harrison v. Harrison, Colo., 462 P.2d 119; Smith v. Smith, Colo., 474 P.2d 619. We find ample competent evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings, and these will not be disturbed on review in the absence of a showing of gross abuse of discretion. Smith v. Smith, Supra; Kelley v. Kelley, 161 Colo. 486, 423 P.2d 315.
Defendant's further claims of error are found to be without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and DWYER, J., concur.