2019 CO 103
Colo.2019Background:
- Juvenile B.B.A.M. was found incompetent to proceed after a DHS outpatient competency evaluation and the court ordered outpatient competency restoration services.
- The court required OBH (Office of Behavioral Health) to provide progress reports every 90 days; OBH later claimed its providers could not opine on competency due to a perceived conflict of interest.
- More than a year after the initial evaluation, the People requested and the juvenile court ordered a second court-ordered competency evaluation over the juvenile’s objection.
- The district court affirmed the juvenile court’s order; the Colorado Supreme Court granted C.A.R. 21 relief and reviewed statutory authority for post-restoration determinations.
- The Supreme Court held the juvenile court lacked authority to order a second competency evaluation to determine restoration; restoration must be determined either during the statutory periodic review (§ 19-2-1303(2)) or at a restoration hearing (§ 19-2-1304(1)).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a juvenile court may order a second competency evaluation after a final incompetency determination and while restoration services are ongoing | Court may order competency examinations whenever available information is inadequate (relying on § 19-2-1302(1)) | Statute authorizes restoration determinations only by periodic review or restoration hearing; § 19-2-1302(1) applies to initial competency determinations only | Court held a second competency evaluation may not be ordered to determine restoration; use restoration review (§19-2-1303(2)) or restoration hearing (§19-2-1304(1)) |
| Whether OBH’s refusal to opine about competency justified a court-ordered independent competency evaluation | OBH’s conflict claim and stale initial report justified court-ordered new evaluator to determine current competency | Statutory scheme contemplates providers reporting progress toward competency; OBH (as coordinator) should supply or secure qualified outside providers to report; refusal does not permit bypassing review/hearing process | Court held OBH’s refusal did not authorize substituting a court-ordered competency exam for the statutory review/hearing; OBH should have provided or arranged qualified opinions |
Key Cases Cited
- People in Interest of W.P., 295 P.3d 514 (Colo. 2013) (discussed scope of juvenile court discretion to order competency evaluations)
- Schultz v. GEICO Cas. Co., 429 P.3d 844 (Colo. 2018) (recognizes potential irreparable harm from compelled medical examinations and privacy interests)
- Denver Post Corp. v. Ritter, 255 P.3d 1083 (Colo. 2011) (statutory interpretation principle: read statutes in context to give consistent, harmonious effect to all parts)