Opinion
Oct. 3, 1972
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Dan S. Hughes, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellee.
Donald E. LaMora, Colorado Springs, for defendant-appellant.
DWYER, Judge.
The trial court, subsequent to entry of decrees of divorce to both plaintiff and defendant, awarded custody of the infant daughter of the parties to the plaintiff mother. The order was based upon the court's finding, after a hearing, that the mother was a fit and proper person to have custody of the child and that the best interests and welfare of the child would be served by awarding custody to the mother. The court's findings are supported by competent evidence, and its custody order is affirmed.
After the action was filed and before the decree of divorce was entered, the court had awarded temporary custody of the child to the defendant father. On appeal, the father argues that the court improperly awarded permanent custody to the mother because no legally significant change in circumstances had occurred. In MacReynolds v. MacReynolds, 29 Colo.App. 267, 482 P.2d 407, this court held:
'. . . since temporary orders are not in any way res judicata as to matters properly the subject of permanent orders, a showing of change of circumstances is not an essential element for the trial court's consideration in its establishment tablishment of permanent alimony.'
MacReynolds involved alimony orders, but the same rule is applicable to custody orders. Accordingly, in order to justify awarding custody to the mother upon the basis of the record made at the hearing on permanent custody, the court was not required to find that a change of circumstances had occurred between the time of the temporary and permanent orders.
The father also asserts that the trial court erred in permitting an expert to express opinions which the father contends were speculative and conjectural and not based on facts and evidence. This assertion of error is without merit. The witness was a physician specializing in psychiatry who had examined both of the parties. His qualifications were admitted. Since the witness was qualified as an expert on a subject appropriate for expert testimony, his opinion was admissible. The adequacy of the basis for his opinion and the weight to be given it was for the trial court to determine. Dolan v. Mitchell, Colo., 501 P.2d 72, announced September 5, 1972; Houser v. Eckhardt, 168 Colo. 226, 450 P.2d 664.
Judgment affirmed.
COYTE and ENOCH, JJ., concur.