People in re M.S
2017 COA 60
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In May 2014 Mesa County DHS took temporary custody of M.S. and initiated dependency and neglect proceedings after allegations involving the father.
- A California court had previously granted the father custody of M.S. in 2010 (Ventura County case).
- The magistrate adjudicated M.S. dependent/neglected, approved a treatment plan for father, and later held hearings on a permanent allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) to the mother.
- The magistrate ultimately issued a permanent APR order awarding custody to the mother; the father sought review in district court, which denied relief, and he appealed.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals sua sponte examined whether the magistrate had subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to modify the earlier California custody order and whether the magistrate followed required UCCJEA procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the UCCJEA apply to dependency and neglect proceedings? | People: UCCJEA governs child-custody and includes dependency proceedings. | Department: UCCJEA should not apply once a child is adjudicated dependent/neglected (relying on pre-UCCJEA precedent). | UCCJEA applies; dependency and neglect proceedings are "child-custody proceedings." |
| Could Colorado modify a prior California custody order without following UCCJEA procedures? | Father: Colorado must follow UCCJEA before modifying an out-of-state custody order. | Department: Magistrate acted to protect the child and could proceed. | Court: Colorado may modify only after UCCJEA requirements met; magistrate failed to follow them. |
| Did the magistrate acquire jurisdiction to issue the APR that effectively modified the California order? | Father: No, magistrate did not communicate with issuing court or make required residency findings. | Department: Evidence could support Colorado jurisdiction because parents and child no longer resided in California. | Magistrate lacked demonstrated UCCJEA jurisdiction; order vacated and remanded for UCCJEA procedures. |
| What remand actions are required? | Father: Magistrate must determine and document jurisdiction, communicate with issuing court, and, if contested, hold a hearing. | Department: (Implicit) Magistrate should consider convenience and child’s best interests. | Court: Remand to district court to direct magistrate to follow UCCJEA (communicate with California court and allow residency evidence/hearing if needed). |
Key Cases Cited
- People in Interest of E.C., 30 Colo. App. 190 (1971) (pre-UCCJA/UCCJEA precedent on state intervention to protect a child within its borders)
- People in Interest of M.C., 94 P.3d 1220 (Colo. App.) (discussing UCCJEA replacing the UCCJA in Colorado)
- L.G. v. People, 890 P.2d 647 (Colo.) (recognizing prior adoption of the UCCJA)
- People in Interest of D.P., 181 P.3d 403 (Colo. App. 2008) (standard of review for UCCJEA jurisdictional questions)
- In re Marriage of Ferris, 75 P.3d 1170 (Colo. App. 2003) (noting courts may notice lack of jurisdiction in magistrate orders declined by district court)
- People in Interest of J.C.S., 169 P.3d 240 (Colo. App. 2007) (sua sponte jurisdictional inquiry appropriate in dependency proceedings)