The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, IN the INTEREST OF Minor Child: S.A.G. and S.A.G., Minor Child v. B.A.G. and A.W.D., 2021 CO 38

Background

In November 2017 Denver police found toddler S.A.G. wandering alone; DHS placed him in foster care and filed a dependency-and-neglect petition. Parents admitted the child’s environment was injurious; the juvenile court adjudicated dependency and neglect and ordered services.
Parents were Arkansas residents who had been in Colorado only weeks before the incident; they asserted the case began while the family was temporarily absent from Arkansas.
DHS moved to terminate parental rights in September 2018; after a multi-day trial the juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights in April 2019.
On appeal the court of appeals vacated the termination, holding Colorado lacked UCCJEA temporary-emergency jurisdiction and that non-emergency jurisdiction required communication with an Arkansas court which had not occurred.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the juvenile court had UCCJEA jurisdiction (temporary emergency or non-emergency) when it issued the termination order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Colorado had UCCJEA temporary-emergency jurisdiction to enter a termination order	People/GAL: temporary-emergency orders can ripen into final determinations under §14-13-204(2) and support termination	Parents: no emergency/abandonment at time of termination; procedural prerequisites not met	Court: No — temporary-emergency jurisdiction applies only where child is abandoned or an emergency exists; neither existed at time of termination, so termination could not rest on temporary-emergency jurisdiction
Whether Colorado had non-emergency (initial) UCCJEA jurisdiction without contacting Arkansas	People/GAL: Colorado’s actions and record support an implied assertion of non-emergency jurisdiction	Parents: Colorado was not home state and court never sought an Arkansas court to decline jurisdiction, so no non-emergency jurisdiction	Court: Colorado was not home state; the juvenile court erred by failing to analyze whether Arkansas still had home-state jurisdiction for the date of the termination order and by failing to make requisite factual findings — remand required for full §14-13-201 analysis
Whether the court of appeals erred by directing immediate contact with Arkansas	People/GAL: court of appeals correctly required communication with Arkansas	Parents: unnecessary where Arkansas’s jurisdiction had lapsed or where other factual issues remain	Court: Partially — remand required for factfinding; contacting Arkansas is required only if, after full analysis, Arkansas may still have home-state jurisdiction or a decline is needed under the statute
What procedures a Colorado court must follow when another state may have jurisdiction	People/GAL: permissive court-to-court communication suffices	Parents: court must contact out-of-state court before asserting non-emergency jurisdiction	Court: Guidance provided — Colorado court must determine whether another state still has home-state jurisdiction; if so, non-emergency jurisdiction dependent on that state declining for specified statutory reasons; court-to-court contact is appropriate, must be recorded, and parties must be given opportunity to participate

Key Cases Cited

Brandt v. Brandt, 268 P.3d 406 (Colo. 2012) (jurisdictional questions reviewed de novo; factual disputes left to trial court)
Currier v. Sutherland, 218 P.3d 709 (Colo. 2009) (trial courts are courts of general jurisdiction limited by statute such as the UCCJEA)
Madrone v. Madrone, 290 P.3d 478 (Colo. 2012) (when another state may have home-state jurisdiction, trial court must determine whether that state would have home-state jurisdiction before invoking alternative UCCJEA bases)
In re Teagan K.-O., 242 A.3d 59 (Conn. 2020) (UCCJEA prescribes framework to avoid interstate custody competition; temporary emergency jurisdiction is limited)
People in Interest of A.B-A., 451 P.3d 1278 (Colo. App. 2019) (temporary emergency jurisdiction under UCCJEA is limited in scope and time; cannot be used to indefinitely retain jurisdiction)