People v., 417 P.3d 843

Background

County filed a dependency-and-neglect (art. 3) petition for three children; parents admitted allegations and children were adjudicated dependent/neglected. The department obtained temporary custody.
Court found mother entered family drug court treatment plan; court determined no appropriate treatment plan could be devised for father because he was incarcerated and uncooperative, but no dispositional order terminating his rights under art. 3 was entered.
GAL later moved to terminate both parents’ rights under the Parent-Child Legal Relationship Termination Act (art. 3, part 6); before resolution, mother elected to relinquish her rights under art. 5 (relinquishment) and the department filed three separate art. 5 petitions seeking involuntary termination of father’s rights (one per child).
The trial court terminated father’s rights in the three art. 5 relinquishment proceedings and modified permanency planning in the open dependency-and-neglect case; father appealed the relinquishment judgments.
The Court of Appeals reversed the terminations under art. 5, holding that when a child is adjudicated dependent or neglected, the dependency-and-neglect court retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction and termination must proceed under art. 3 (the Act). The court remanded to vacate and dismiss the relinquishment cases and left the art. 3 case open for disposition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a county department may use an art. 5 relinquishment proceeding to involuntarily terminate a nonrelinquishing parent’s rights while an art. 3 dependency-and-neglect case is pending	Department: §19-5-105 requires the agency with custody to file termination in a relinquishment when the other parent relinquishes; thus art. 5 termination was proper	Father: art. 3 controls for adjudicated dependent/neglected children; dependency court has exclusive continuing jurisdiction and termination must be via the Act (art. 3)	Held for father: art. 3 governs; dependency court has continuing exclusive jurisdiction and termination must be under the Parent-Child Legal Relationship Termination Act (art. 3)
Whether article 5’s streamlined protections sufficiently protect a parent who was denied a treatment plan at dispositional stage in art. 3	Department/trial court: art. 5 protections were adequate and any earlier dispositional error in art. 3 did not prejudice father	Father: erroneous dispositional finding (no treatment plan) materially affected his procedural protections and prospects for reunification; art. 5 cannot substitute for art. 3 safeguards	Held for father: art. 5’s informal procedures do not substitute for art. 3 procedural protections; the denial of a treatment plan is consequential
Whether legal custody obtained via art. 3 allows the department to consent to adoption or termination under art. 5	Department: custody-holder may pursue termination in art. 5 after another parent relinquishes	Father: legal custody under art. 3 does not include authority to consent to adoption or to convert proceedings to art. 5 termination when art. 3 is open	Held for father: legal custody is distinct from guardianship/consent to adoption; art. 3 procedures must be used to terminate rights of an adjudicated child
Whether the dependency-and-neglect appeal was ripe	Father: sought to challenge alleged defects in the art. 3 proceedings that affected art. 5 outcomes	State: contended limited review; trial court had acted in relinquishment cases	Held: dismissed portion of appeal concerning art. 3 because no final dispositional order or termination under art. 3 made it unripe for appellate review

Key Cases Cited

In re B.D.G., 881 P.2d 375 (Colo. App. 1993) (art. 3 and art. 5 proceedings have distinct purposes and procedures)
L.G. v. People, 890 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1995) (purpose of dependency-and-neglect is child safety and family preservation)
A.M. v. A.C., 296 P.3d 1026 (Colo. 2013) (enumerating significant procedural protections in art. 3 termination hearings)
People in Interest of M.S., 292 P.3d 1247 (Colo. App. 2012) (dispositional hearing/termination procedure distinctions and appealability)
K.D. v. People, 139 P.3d 695 (Colo. 2006) (treatment plans’ role in preserving parent-child relationship)
In re D.S.L., 18 P.3d 856 (Colo. App. 2001) (disallowing use of art. 5 to circumvent art. 3 protections)
In re R.A.M., 411 P.3d 814 (Colo. App. 2014) (relinquishment’s limited procedural safeguards)
City & County of Denver v. District Court, 675 P.2d 312 (Colo. 1984) (juvenile court gains continuous exclusive jurisdiction upon filing of a valid dependency/neglect petition)
People in Interest of D.R.W., 91 P.3d 453 (Colo. App. 2004) (reversing termination where failure to hold dispositional hearing deprived parent of treatment opportunity)
People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1982) (scope of dispositional remedies in dependency-and-neglect cases)