2017 COA 119
Colo. Ct. App.2017Background
- In Aug. 2015 Denver DHS (DDHS) took temporary custody of a 9‑year‑old after concerns including possible sexual abuse, homelessness, truancy, and parental substance abuse; child was placed in foster care.
- DDHS’s petition referenced prior child‑welfare involvement for this family in multiple states (notably Texas); record contained only a minute order stating TX DHS had “closed their case,” with no transcript or details.
- The Colorado trial court adjudicated the child dependent and neglected, approved parent treatment plans, and later terminated both parents’ rights after finding they failed to comply and were unfit.
- Mother had moved to North Carolina, failed to complete required treatment, lost visitation, and had inconsistent contact with providers and the caseworker.
- The trial court did not make explicit UCCJEA findings, did not take testimony under oath about out‑of‑state proceedings, did not stay for further proof, nor did it communicate with other states’ courts before entering permanent orders.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DDHS/State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colorado had subject‑matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to terminate parental rights | Colorado lacked ongoing jurisdiction because a child‑welfare/custody proceeding existed or recently existed in Texas (so Colorado only had emergency jurisdiction) | Implicitly that Colorado could proceed (DDHS proceeded without full proof of out‑of‑state proceedings) | Vacated and remanded: trial court must obtain additional information, potentially stay proceedings or examine parties under oath, and communicate with other states as required by the UCCJEA before entering permanent orders |
| Whether lack of UCCJEA jurisdiction can be raised for the first time on appeal | Jurisdictional defect may be asserted on appeal despite not raised below | Agreed with mother that jurisdiction may be raised on appeal | Court permits challenge for first time on appeal and reviews UCCJEA subject‑matter jurisdiction de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- People in Interest of N.D.V., 224 P.3d 410 (Colo. App. 2009) (jurisdictional defects under UCCJEA may be raised on appeal)
- In re Marriage of Pritchett, 80 P.3d 918 (Colo. App. 2003) (de novo review of subject‑matter jurisdiction questions)
- Brandt v. Brandt, 268 P.3d 406 (Colo. 2012) (courts must communicate with other states under the UCCJEA when aware of out‑of‑state proceedings)
- Madrone v. Madrone, 290 P.3d 478 (Colo. 2012) (explaining categories of initial jurisdiction under the UCCJEA)
- Janicek v. Obsideo, LLC, 271 P.3d 1133 (Colo. App. 2011) (trial court rulings may contain implicit findings of law or fact)
- People in Interest of M.C., 94 P.3d 1220 (Colo. App. 2004) (UCCJEA’s aim to avoid simultaneous jurisdictional exercises)
- Interest of K.N., 977 P.2d 868 (Colo. 1999) (courts must follow statutory procedures when statutory prerequisites are met)
- In re the Parental Responsibilities Concerning L.S., 257 P.3d 201 (Colo. 2011) (Colorado adoption of the UCCJEA and its purposes)