2019 COA 109
Colo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Mesa County Department of Human Services filed a dependency and neglect petition concerning three children; both parents denied the allegations and demanded a jury trial.
- After a three-day jury trial, the jury returned a special verdict adjudicating the children dependent and neglected.
- A magistrate later entered dispositional orders continuing out-of-home placement and adopting treatment plans; the parents did not petition the district court to review those dispositional orders.
- Father sought permission to file a late appeal, raising uncertainty created by the interaction of Colorado appellate rules and statutes about whether district-court review of a magistrate’s dispositional order is a prerequisite to an appeal of the adjudication.
- The Court of Appeals (Division IV) addressed jurisdiction first and concluded the adjudicatory order was final and appealable despite the lack of district-court review of the magistrate’s disposition; it then rejected the parents’ challenge to the jury-selection process and affirmed.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent may appeal an adjudicatory order without first seeking district-court review of a magistrate’s dispositional order | Parents: C.A.R. 3.4(b)(1) and § 19-1-109(2)(c) require appealing within 21 days after disposition, but C.R.M. 7(a)(11) and § 19-1-108(5.5) suggest district-court review of magistrate dispositions is a prerequisite, creating uncertainty; request direct appeal | Department/GAL: § 19-1-108(5.5) makes petition for review of magistrate’s order a prerequisite to appellate review, so failure to seek review deprives appellate jurisdiction | The adjudicatory order is a final, appealable order after disposition; district-court review of an unchallenged magistrate dispositional order is not a prerequisite to appeal of the adjudication; appeal allowed |
| Whether the juvenile court’s use of unused peremptory challenges (exercising GAL’s unused strikes) violated due process or was prejudicial | Parents: Court’s exercise of peremptory challenges allocated to parties infringed their right to shape the jury and rendered trial fundamentally unfair | Department/GAL: Any error was harmless; parents cannot show substantial impact on outcome or basic unfairness | Any error in the court’s use of peremptory strikes was harmless: court reduced jury to required size, gave pragmatic reasons for dismissals, no contemporaneous objection to dismissals, and parents showed no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- People in Interest of J.C., 844 P.2d 1185 (Colo. 1993) (discusses appellate review in juvenile proceedings)
- E.O. v. People in Interest of C.O.A., 854 P.2d 797 (Colo. 1993) (explains bifurcated adjudication and disposition structure in dependency cases)
- In re D.I.S., 249 P.3d 775 (Colo. 2011) (parents’ fundamental liberty interest in custody requires fundamentally fair procedures)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process protections applicable when parental rights or custody may be terminated)
- People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1982) (burden of proof and procedure for adjudication in dependency actions)
- Bly v. Story, 241 P.3d 529 (Colo. 2010) (harmless-error standard and when an error affects a substantial right)
- Fieger v. E. Nat’l Bank, 710 P.2d 1134 (Colo. App. 1985) (purpose and importance of peremptory challenges)
- Washington v. People, 186 P.3d 594 (Colo. 2008) (no entitlement to a jury of any particular composition)