2018 COA 98
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Weld County Department of Human Services filed a dependency-and-neglect petition naming A.M.G. as the father and also sought a paternity determination under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA).
- A dependency-and-neglect adjudication was entered in August 2016 after father failed to appear; the dependency case remained open while paternity testing and related proceedings were pending.
- A separate child-support (article 4/UPA) proceeding issued an order (after father’s nonappearance) declaring stepmother the child’s legal parent and finding A.M.G. was not the father.
- The dependency-and-neglect court received that child-support order, treated it as final (no appeal), and dismissed A.M.G. from the dependency petition based on the child-support court’s parentage finding.
- Father argued the dependency court erred because, once a child is adjudicated dependent or neglected, the dependency court retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the child’s status (including parentage), and child-support/UPA proceedings cannot nullify parental rights without the procedural protections afforded in article 3.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: the dependency court should not have relied on the separate child-support court’s parentage determination because article 3’s continuing jurisdiction and due-process protections govern adjudicated dependent/neglected children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a separate UPA/child-support court may determine parentage after a child has been adjudicated dependent or neglected in an open article 3 case | The child-support unit (plaintiff) relied on UPA authority to establish parentage in its separate proceeding | Father argued article 3 grants the dependency court continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over status matters (including parentage) once a child is adjudicated | Court held dependency court retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction; separate UPA proceedings cannot determine parentage for an adjudicated child while the article 3 case is open |
| Whether the article 4 proceeding provided constitutionally adequate process to terminate or limit parental rights once dependency adjudication occurred | Child-support/UPA proceeding proceeded without the full procedural protections of article 3 and without counsel appointment | Father argued lack of article 3 procedural protections (counsel, treatment plan, rehabilitative process) violated due process | Court held the UPA proceeding effectively eliminated parental rights without the due-process protections required in dependency/neglect proceedings, so it was improper |
| Whether the dependency court could rely on genetic testing or findings from other proceedings | Plaintiff argued results from other cases can be persuasive or used in dependency proceedings | Father argued reliance on another court’s parentage order usurped the dependency court’s jurisdiction | Court held dependency court may consider genetic testing obtained elsewhere, but it may not cede jurisdiction to another court’s parentage order when the dependency case is open |
| Whether father waived jurisdictional challenge by not appealing the child-support magistrate’s order | Guardian ad litem argued father should have appealed that order | Father attacked the dependency court’s dismissal and contested reliance on the child-support order as improper | Court found father could collaterally attack the other court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and proceeded to rule in his favor |
Key Cases Cited
- People in Interest of C.L.S., 313 P.3d 662 (Colo. App. 2011) (discusses UPA proceedings and parentage determination)
- L.L. v. People, 10 P.3d 1271 (Colo. 2000) (purposes of dependency-and-neglect procedures to protect children and preserve families)
- R.McG. v. J.W., 615 P.2d 666 (Colo. 1980) (UPA purposes: establish and protect parent-child relationship)
- In re D.I.S., 249 P.3d 775 (Colo. 2011) (parents’ fundamental liberty interest in custody and due-process protections)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (due-process requirements before terminating parental rights)
- People in Interest of E.E.A. v. J.M., 854 P.2d 1346 (Colo. App. 1992) (permitting collateral attack on another court’s subject-matter jurisdiction)