in Interest of S.A.G, 2020 COA 45

Background

Child born in 2014 lived with parents in Arkansas until family moved to Colorado in late 2017; about three weeks after arrival Denver DHS obtained custody and filed a dependency and neglect case.
At the shelter/adjudicatory hearings parents consistently stated they remained Arkansas residents and intended to return; the court entered an emergency out-of-home placement order but did not label it as UCCJEA temporary emergency jurisdiction.
Parents returned to Arkansas in June 2018; the Department pursued termination of parental rights in September 2018 and the contested termination trial lasted several months with parents appearing by phone from Arkansas.
The juvenile court found jurisdiction based on the incident occurring in Denver and terminated both parents’ rights, but the court made no UCCJEA findings and there is no record of any communication with an Arkansas court.
On appeal the parents challenged subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, arguing temporary emergency jurisdiction could not support a permanent termination and that Colorado needed to communicate with Arkansas (the child’s home state) and obtain a declination before asserting ongoing jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Department (appellee) argument	Parents' argument	Held
Whether Colorado could rely on UCCJEA temporary emergency jurisdiction to enter a permanent termination order	Colorado’s temporary emergency order could be treated as final (or inferred from court’s ruling) under § 14-13-204(2) if Colorado became the child’s home state	Temporary emergency jurisdiction only allows temporary orders; it cannot support a permanent termination — the court needed an ongoing jurisdictional basis under § 14-13-201	Temporary emergency jurisdiction did not authorize termination; the orders lacked the statutory proviso and the record does not show Colorado became the home state
Whether the juvenile court had to communicate with a court in the child’s home state (Arkansas) before asserting ongoing jurisdiction under § 14-13-201 alternatives	Communication is not mandated where no proceeding is pending in the home state; contacting the home court is at best a “best practice”	A home-state court must be given an opportunity to decide whether to exercise jurisdiction; a non-home state cannot find the home state has declined without contacting it	The court must communicate with the home-state court and the home court must decline jurisdiction before Colorado may exercise significant-connection or more-appropriate-forum jurisdiction
Whether implicit findings could supply a basis for Colorado’s continued jurisdiction	The juvenile court’s oral ruling and proceedings support an inference Colorado became the home state	The record does not support an inference Colorado was the child’s home state given the child’s brief presence in Colorado and clear Arkansas ties	Implicit findings are insufficient here; the record does not support a finding that Colorado was the home state
Remedy: whether the termination judgment should be vacated and remanded for jurisdictional proceedings	Remand unnecessary if jurisdiction can be inferred; otherwise court discretion	Vacatur and remand required to permit communication with Arkansas and further jurisdictional findings	Judgment vacated and case remanded; court must communicate with Arkansas and obtain declination before concluding it has continuing jurisdiction (may reopen evidence)

Key Cases Cited

In re Gino C., 169 Cal. Rptr. 3d 193 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (temporary emergency jurisdiction cannot automatically convert to permanent jurisdiction absent home-state status)
Manley v. Hoag, 917 P.2d 1011 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996) (home state must do more than remain passive; a decline requires an affirmative decision)
Wood v. Redwine, 33 P.3d 53 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001) (absence of litigation elsewhere does not constitute a declination by the home state)
Ruffier v. Ruffier, 190 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Ct. App. 2006) (until the home state affirmatively declines, another state cannot assert significant-connection jurisdiction)
Marquest Med. Prods., Inc. v. Daniel, McKee & Co., 791 P.2d 14 (Colo. App. 1990) (implicit findings may suffice in some jurisdictional contexts)
Catron v. Catron, 577 P.2d 322 (Colo. App. 1978) (statutorily required findings may be implicit in rulings)
CAMAS Colo., Inc. v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 36 P.3d 135 (Colo. App. 2001) (appellate review standard for factual findings)