2016 COA 125
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- In May 2014 Clear Creek County DHS obtained temporary protective custody of J.W. (5) and N.W. (10 months) after concerns about serious injuries to another child in the home and prior referrals (drug use, domestic violence, alleged choking by maternal uncle).
- DHS filed a dependency/neglect petition first alleging failure to protect; it later amended to allege lack of proper parental care and an injurious environment under §§ 19-3-102(1)(b) & (c).
- A July 10–11, 2014 jury trial resulted in a jury finding “no” as to lack of parental care and being unable to reach a verdict on injurious environment. At a July 14 hearing mother (C.O.) admitted that the children’s environment was injurious; the court accepted the admission and adopted a treatment plan, but no written adjudication order was signed then.
- The court later held a termination trial and entered a judgment terminating mother’s parental rights. More than a month after the termination judgment, on October 30, 2015 the court signed a written adjudicatory order purporting to be effective July 14, 2014. Mother appealed.
- The Court of Appeals held that because no adjudicatory order had been entered before the termination judgment, the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to terminate parental rights; it also held the October 30 adjudicatory order was entered after mother’s notice of appeal and thus the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (C.O.) | Defendant's Argument (People/Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal on adjudicatory-stage issues | Appeal timely because no written adjudication was entered until Oct 30, 2015 | The adjudication was "made" July 14, 2014 and issues are untimely | Held: Appeal timely — final termination order made adjudicatory-stage issues appealable because no written adjudication was entered before termination |
| Whether court had jurisdiction to terminate parental rights before formal adjudication | Termination invalid because statutory adjudication (order sustaining petition) is a prerequisite to termination jurisdiction under § 19‑3‑604 | Trial court’s acceptance of mother’s admission established the factual predicate/jurisdiction (relying on N.D.V.) | Held: Trial court lacked jurisdiction to terminate because it never entered the required adjudication order before termination; an admission alone did not satisfy § 19‑3‑505(7)(a) |
| Validity of adjudicatory order entered Oct 30, 2015 after notice of appeal | The late written order is invalid because it was entered after mother filed notice of appeal, which divested trial court of jurisdiction | Department/GAL argued prior admission/court acceptance was sufficient and the late order related back | Held: The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the written adjudicatory order after appeal was filed; the order is vacated |
| Merits of mother’s challenges to treatment plan, visitation, and factual findings | Mother argued trial errors and insufficiency of findings support reversal | Department/GAL defended plan, visitation reductions, and sufficiency of termination findings | Held: Merits are moot because termination and adjudication orders vacated for lack of jurisdiction; remand for adjudicatory-stage proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- People in Interest of O.J.S., 844 P.2d 1230 (Colo. App. 1992) (written signed order required for final, appealable order)
- D.A.S. v. People, 863 P.2d 291 (Colo. 1993) (case discussing finality and appealability of juvenile orders)
- People in Interest of T.E.M., 124 P.3d 905 (Colo. App. 2005) (orders not reduced to writing are not final until later entry)
- People in Interest of N.D.V., 224 P.3d 410 (Colo. App. 2009) (majority held acceptance of admission can establish factual predicate for jurisdiction; dissent argued formal adjudication required)
- People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1982) (adjudication is prerequisite to exercise of extensive dispositional remedies)
- People in Interest of C.H., 166 P.3d 288 (Colo. App. 2007) (court must ensure parent understands effect of admission)