2019 COA 72
Colo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Larimer County Department of Human Services filed a dependency/neglect petition after an 8‑year‑old alleged sexual abuse by father and acted out sexually with a sibling.
- Father received a proposed treatment plan (Mar 20, 2017) requiring an offense‑specific evaluation and compliance; father requested the Department pay for evaluation/treatment.
- Department said it had no funds and its policy was not to pay for such evaluations/treatment.
- Father stipulated to a deferred adjudication, later agreed to formal adjudication; the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing, found father unable to pay, and ordered the Department to pay for appropriate treatment or modify the plan to permit compliance.
- Department appealed the juvenile court’s order directing it to pay. The Court of Appeals considered whether an initial dispositional order, by itself, is a final, appealable order under section 19‑1‑109(2)(c), C.R.S., and dismissed the appeal for lack of finality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an initial dispositional order adopting a treatment plan is a final, appealable order under § 19‑1‑109(2)(c) | The statutory language and prior precedent allow appeal of the dispositional order as final; the Department argued the initial dispositional order determined its rights and is appealable | Father/other parties argued the dispositional order is interlocutory and not final; appealability language applies only to the adjudicatory order | The court held the adjudicatory order is final and appealable after disposition, but an initial dispositional order, by itself, is not a final, appealable order under § 19‑1‑109(2)(c) |
| Whether the specific order directing the Department to pay for father’s treatment was independently appealable | Department asserted the payment directive was part of the dispositional order and thus appealable | Other parties argued the payment directive was not a final dispositional order and was interlocutory | The court did not reach whether the payment order is part of a dispositional order because it concluded the initial dispositional order alone is not final; appeal dismissed for lack of finality |
Key Cases Cited
- People in Interest of C.L.S., 934 P.2d 851 (Colo. 1996) (initial dispositional order adopting a treatment plan was treated as a decree of disposition for appealability concerns)
- E.O. v. People in Interest of C.O.A., 854 P.2d 797 (Colo. 1993) (bifurcated dependency/neglect process; adjudication not final until disposition entered)
- People in Interest of B.M., 738 P.2d 45 (Colo. App. 1987) (approval of a treatment plan addressing placement constitutes disposition)
- People in Interest of K.A., 155 P.3d 558 (Colo. App. 2006) (dispositional placements are temporary and subject to periodic review)
- People in Interest of C.M., 116 P.3d 1278 (Colo. App. 2005) (treatment plans and dispositional orders can be modified after periodic review)
- People in Interest of F.M., 609 P.2d 1123 (Colo. App. 1980) (adjudication without dispositional order is not final)