2013 COA 171
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- LCDSS filed a dependency-and-neglect petition and sought temporary custody of newborn J.G.C.; it identified J.C.H. as the presumptive father but alleged he might not be the biological father.
- The juvenile court ordered paternity testing. Genetic results submitted by LCDSS showed a zero probability of paternity for J.C.H.
- LCDSS moved to dismiss J.C.H. from the petition based on the test results; J.C.H. acknowledged he was not the biological father but had been listed as father on the birth certificate.
- The district court dismissed J.C.H. from the petition, concluding the genetic results clearly and convincingly rebutted the presumption of paternity.
- On appeal, the court sua sponte considered whether the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction to determine paternity because another alleged father (P.C.) had been identified but was not given notice or joined before the paternity determination.
- The court vacated the dismissal as void for lack of jurisdiction and held that the genetic evidence did not, by itself here, rebut the statutory presumption arising from J.C.H.’s listing on the birth certificate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (LCDSS) | Defendant's Argument (J.C.H.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the juvenile court authorized to decide paternity in the dependency case? | LCDSS: juvenile court may decide paternity joined to dependency proceedings. | J.C.H.: UPA procedures must be followed; other alleged father (P.C.) not joined so court lacked basis. | Court: Juvenile court may hear paternity joined to dependency, but here it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because P.C. (an alleged father) was neither joined nor given notice. |
| Did failure to join/notify P.C. deprive the court of jurisdiction? | LCDSS: did not contest jurisdiction in trial court. | J.C.H.: argued statutory joinder/notice requirement not triggered absent competing presumptions. | Court: UPA requires joining or giving notice to all presumed/alleged fathers; failure to do so deprived court of jurisdiction; dismissal was void. |
| Did genetic test results conclusively rebut J.C.H.’s presumption of paternity from the birth certificate? | LCDSS: zero probability of paternity rebutted the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. | J.C.H.: presumption from written acknowledgment (birth certificate) remains unless rebut by clear and convincing evidence; mere admission of nonbiological status not enough here. | Court: Court erred — no clear-and-convincing rebuttal shown; presumption from birth certificate stood. |
| Was LCDSS permitted to seek dismissal to allow alleged biological father to step in (standing)? | LCDSS: could seek dismissal to vindicate child’s interests and allow putative father to be added. | J.C.H.: LCDSS lacked standing to assert rights of an unknown/nonparty alleged father. | Court: Declined to decide standing because P.C. later relinquished rights and no other alleged father exists; issue unlikely to recur on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1982) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in child custody)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1972) (standard for terminating parental rights; parental liberty interest protection)
- N.A.H. v. S.L.S., 9 P.3d 354 (Colo. 2000) (no presumption of paternity is conclusive; weigh competing presumptions)
- In re Parental Responsibilities of A.D., 240 P.3d 488 (Colo.App. 2010) (acknowledgment on birth certificate creates statutory presumption of paternity)
- In re Marriage of De La Cruz, 791 P.2d 1254 (Colo.App. 1990) (district court may determine parentage where parentage issue is joined with other proceedings)
- Burkey, 689 P.2d 726 (Colo.App. 1984) (failure to follow UPA procedures can divest court of authority to determine parentage)
- People in Interest of C.L.S., 313 P.3d 662 (Colo.App. 2011) (procedural guidance for resolving competing presumptions of paternity)