In Re CLS
252 P.3d 556
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mother relinquished custody to LFS and purportedly concealed the father's identity from court to facilitate an expedited relinquishment and termination.
- LFS placed the child for adoption and published notice of relinquishment in Douglas County; the district court found notice by publication adequate and terminated both parents' rights by default.
- Adoption finalized in Jefferson County; child remained with adoptive parents after June 23, 2008 decree.
- Father learned of the child alive and adopted in 2009 via a text message from mother, but he had no timely notice of the relinquishment or termination proceedings.
- Father filed a pro se motion to vacate in December 2009 arguing due process was violated by mother's fraud and lack of notice; district court denied as time-barred under statutes and rule.
- The appellate court held the default judgment void due to due process violations and reversed/remanded for a contested relinquishment hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice by publication violated due process and voided the default termination | Father | LFS and intervenors | Yes; notice by publication violated due process, rendering the default judgment void. |
| Whether the void judgment was subject to time limitations for relief | Father | LFS and intervenors | No; because the judgment is void, statutory and Rule 60(b) time limits do not apply. |
| Whether relief should be granted under Rule 60(b)(3) for a void judgment | Father | LFS and intervenors | Yes; relief is mandatory when the judgment is void due to lack of notice. |
| Whether remand for a contested relinquishment hearing is required | Father | LFS and intervenors | Remand is required for contested relinquishment proceedings and paternity resolution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1965) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard in termination proceedings)
- In re J.M.A., 240 P.3d 547 (Colo. App. 2010) (due process in termination; failure of notice entitles relief)
- First Nat'l Bank v. Fleisher, 2 P.3d 706 (Colo. 2000) (judgment void for lack of due process may warrant vacatur)
- Mason-Jares, Ltd. v. Peterson, 939 P.2d 522 (Colo. App. 1997) (judgment void when service by publication fails to notify)
- Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 138 Colo. 171 (Colo. 1958) (voidness and relief standards for void judgments)
- In re S.O., 795 P.2d 254 (Colo. 1990) (commentary on reasonable time for Rule 60(b)(3) relief is dictum)
- In re Marriage of Seely, 689 P.2d 1154 (Colo. App. 1984) (fraud-based relief under Rule 60(b) distinct from void-judgment relief)
- In re Adoption of Hugh, 619 N.E.2d 983 (Ind. 1993) (burden on parties where notice was deficient)
- J.M.A., 240 P.3d 547 (Colo. App. 2010) (reiterates due-process framework for relinquishment notices)