2021 COA 4
Colo. Ct. App.2021Background
- Child adjudicated dependent and neglected after mother’s arrest and admissions of regular methamphetamine, marijuana, and alcohol use; child placed with godmother.
- Mother initially admitted, set aside default judgment, received a treatment plan, but later ceased contact and missed services and visits for ~14 months.
- Department moved to terminate parental rights; child under six triggered expedited permanency planning provisions.
- COVID-19 court directives required hearings be conducted remotely via Webex; mother sought a continuance to obtain an in-person hearing and raised multiple remote-proceeding fairness concerns.
- Juvenile court denied the continuance, held a contested termination hearing by Webex, found no less drastic alternative (APR) and terminated mother’s parental rights; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (State/Juvenile Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuance: whether Webex requirement was good cause to continue | Remote-only hearing inherently unreliable and unfair (audio/video, broadband, objections, sequestration, record) | Court can manage technical issues, virtual lobby can sequester witnesses, record preserved, delays/redress possible, child needs prompt permanency | Denial of continuance not an abuse of discretion; no good cause shown |
| Due process: whether remote hearing denied fundamentally fair procedures | Webex prevented mother’s meaningful participation and impaired counsel’s advocacy | Mother had notice, counsel, opportunity to be heard, cross-examine, present evidence; court made accommodations (virtual lobby, reporter readbacks, recess) | Remote Webex hearing afforded due process |
| Equal protection: whether remote procedure treated mother differently | Remote hearing denied equal protection | No showing of disparate treatment of similarly situated parties | Claim not considered—bare assertion without development |
| Less drastic alternative: whether APR to godmother was adequate alternative to termination | APR would preserve child’s placement without terminating parental rights | Child needed permanency via adoption; mother was unfit and had not engaged in services; APR would not secure stability | Court properly found no less drastic alternative; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in care, custody, and control of their children)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (state must provide fundamentally fair procedures before terminating parental rights)
- C.S. v. People in Interest of I.S., 83 P.3d 627 (Colo. 2004) (balance need for expeditious permanency against motion-to-continue facts)
- People in Interest of M.M., 215 P.3d 1237 (Colo. App. 2009) (presumption that juvenile court disregards incompetent evidence)
- People in Interest of M.M., 726 P.2d 1108 (Colo. 1986) (court must consider and eliminate less drastic alternatives to termination)
- People in Interest of C.H., 166 P.3d 288 (Colo. App. 2007) (statutory criteria for termination under section 19-3-604)
- Patterson v. Cronin, 650 P.2d 531 (Colo. 1982) (opportunity to be heard must be at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner)
- White v. State, 116 A.3d 520 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) (real-time videoconference platforms allow observation of witness demeanor and viewing exhibits)
- People in Interest of A.J.L., 243 P.3d 244 (Colo. 2010) (appellate review defers to juvenile court factual findings with record support)
- Barnett v. Elite Props. of Am., Inc., 252 P.3d 14 (Colo. App. 2010) (court will not consider undeveloped or bald legal assertions)