Peo in Interest of RRS
23CA2219
Colo. Ct. App.Aug 1, 2024Background
- The El Paso County Department of Human Services filed a dependency and neglect petition regarding R.R.S., a newborn who tested positive for THC at birth and whose mother, S.S., allegedly used marijuana, fentanyl, and methamphetamines while pregnant.
- S.S. (mother) denied the allegations and timely requested a jury trial.
- On the day of the scheduled jury trial, mother was absent when the proceedings began, and her counsel stated she knew of the trial date but had indicated she would not be present.
- The trial court, over objection by mother's counsel, found that mother had waived her right to a jury trial due to nonappearance and converted the proceeding to a bench trial.
- Mother appeared virtually after testimony had begun, objected to the finding of waiver, but the court affirmed its decision and ultimately adjudicated the child dependent and neglected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother waived her statutory right to a jury by failing to timely appear at trial | Delay did not justify waiver; court erred by not allowing more time or checking circumstances | Waiver was proper; court made due inquiry and had no reason to wait longer | No error: Waiver was implied by failure to appear and no good cause identified |
| Whether court sufficiently inquired into reason for mother’s absence before finding waiver | Court did not check with mother or allow time; this was premature | Court asked counsel about mother’s whereabouts and learned she wouldn’t attend | Court made adequate inquiry under relevant rules and precedent |
| Whether any waiver was voluntary, given alleged technical issues | Connectivity issues made absence involuntary | No evidence mother timely communicated any technical difficulties | No support for involuntariness; waiver was voluntary |
| Whether prior case law requires more time or inquiry | Relied on precedent requiring more inquiry before waiver | Distinguished precedent; here, no indications of imminent arrival or valid cause | Court properly distinguished precedent; followed procedural requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Whaley v. Keystone Life Ins. Co., 811 P.2d 404 (Colo. App. 1989) (party’s right to jury trial is substantial and may be lost only for specific reasons)
- Wright v. Woller, 976 P.2d 902 (Colo. App. 1999) (right to jury trial may be lost per rules such as failure to appear)
