958 P.2d 1132 (Colo.App. 1998), 97CA1088, People in Interest of v. W

Docket Nº:97CA1088.
Citation:958 P.2d 1132
Opinion Judge:KAPELKE Judge.
Party Name:The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, IN the INTEREST OF V.W., a Child, and Concerning S.W. and R.R., Respondents-Appellants.
Attorney:George N. Monsson, Morgan County Attorney, Douglas J. Marston, Assistant Morgan County Attorney, Ft. Morgan, for Petitioner-Appellee. Elizabeth Strobel, Guardian Ad Litem. Arnold, Ross & Singer, LLP, Alan W. Samber, Sterling, for Respondent-Appellant S.W. Michael O. Kelley, Ft. Morgan, for Respon...
Judge Panel:MARQUEZ and ERICKSON [ * ], JJ., concur.
Case Date:May 14, 1998
Court:Court of Appeals of Colorado, Fifth Division
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1132

958 P.2d 1132 (Colo.App. 1998)

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, IN the INTEREST OF V.W., a Child, and Concerning S.W. and R.R., Respondents-Appellants.

No. 97CA1088.

Court of Appeals of Colorado, Fifth Division

May 14, 1998

Page 1133

George N. Monsson, Morgan County Attorney, Douglas J. Marston, Assistant Morgan County Attorney, Ft. Morgan, for Petitioner-Appellee.

Elizabeth Strobel, Guardian Ad Litem.

Arnold, Ross & Singer, LLP, Alan W. Samber, Sterling, for Respondent-Appellant S.W.

Michael O. Kelley, Ft. Morgan, for Respondent-Appellant R.R.

OPINION

KAPELKE Judge.

S.W. (mother) appeals from a trial court judgment Terminating her parent-child relationship with her child, V.W. R.R. (father) appeals from a trial court order denying his motion to set aside a default judgment of termination of his parental rights with respect to V.W. We affirm.

  1. Father's Appeal

    A.

    Father contends that the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the default judgment of termination on the basis that counsel had not been appointed to represent him at the termination hearing. We find no error.

    At the first appearance in a dependency or neglect proceeding, a parent must be advised of the right to be represented by counsel at every stage of the proceeding and of the right to seek appointed counsel if he or she is financially unable to secure counsel. Sections 19-1-105(2) and 19-3-202(1), C.R.S.1997; People in Interest of L.L., 715 P.2d 334 (Colo.1986). Section 19-3-602(2), C.R.S.1997, provides that, after a motion to terminate is filed, a parent who is not represented by counsel must again be advised of the right to counsel, and that "counsel shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of § 19-1-105."

    Unlike father, we do not construe § 19-3-602(2) to require a trial court to appoint counsel, sua sponte, for any parent who does not have an attorney at the time a motion to terminate is filed and who thereafter made no request for an appointment of counsel. Rather, § 19-3-602(2) expressly states that counsel shall be appointed pursuant to § 19-1-105(2), which, in turn, provides that the right to counsel shall be as provided in the Children's Code. Thus, §§ 19-3-202(2) and 19-3-602(2) must be construed together. See also M.S. v. People, 812 P.2d 632 (Colo.1991).

    In People in Interest of L.L., supra, the supreme...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP