City and County of Denver v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 83SA412
| Decision Date | 30 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83SA412,83SA412 |
| Citation | 675 P.2d 312 |
| Parties | CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Colorado, A Municipal Corporation and the Denver Department of Social Services, Petitioners, v. The DISTRICT COURT OF the SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, State of Colorado, and the Honorable Robert E. Kingsley, a Judge thereof, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Stephen H. Kaplan, City Atty., Carol A. Polevoy, Robert Lubowitz, Asst. City Attys., Denver, for petitioners.
Zuckerman & Kleinman, P.C., Leo T. Zuckerman, Denver, for respondents.
Petitioners, the Denver Department of Social Services (the Department) and the City and County of Denver, assert in this original proceeding that the respondent district court exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a habeas corpus proceeding and ordering the Department to deliver custody of a minor child to the child's father. 1 We stayed the order and issued a rule to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. We conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order, and make the rule absolute.
On July 25, 1983, the Department filed in the Juvenile Court for the City and County of Denver a petition in dependency or neglect with respect to the child, pursuant to section 19-1-101, et seq., C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). 2 The Department had conducted an investigation into the child's circumstances when the child's mother was arrested for alleged shoplifting.
The petition alleged in part that the name of the child's father was unknown; that the child's mother had failed to provide proper care of the child; that the child was homeless; and that the child had been kidnapped and had been sexually abused. The Department requested custody of the child "until it is known whether or not [the child is] subject to the jurisdiction of any other court and mother can provide the basis of ... appropriate supervision."
On July 25, 1983, the juvenile court awarded temporary custody of the child to the Department, without prejudice. 3 On July 29, 1983, it granted the Department's request that physical custody of the child be returned to the child's mother.
On September 20, 1983, a pretrial conference and detention hearing was conducted by the juvenile court. 4 On that date, an attorney representing the child's natural father appeared and filed a motion and supporting brief asserting that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over the child. In support of his argument, the father apparently relied upon uncertified copies of a petition for habeas corpus filed April 25, 1983 in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, and an April 26, 1983, writ of attachment issued by that court directing any Texas police official to deliver the child to the father and setting a hearing concerning possession of the child. The juvenile court continued the matter to October 18, 1983, for ruling on the father's motion and further investigation. 5 The juvenile court also continued in effect previous orders respecting custody of the child pending further proceedings.
On September 22, 1983, the father filed a verified petition for writ of habeas corpus with the respondent district court, seeking release of the child from the Department and delivery of the child to the father. The petition alleged that the father was the child's legal guardian; that the mother had removed the child from Texas without authority and in violation of a court order; that the Department held the child without legal basis; and that the father, as lawful custodial parent of the child, should be given immediate possession of the child. After a show-cause hearing conducted on September 27, 1983, the respondent district court ordered the Department to deliver possession of the child to the father. Petitioners challenge that order by this proceeding.
Petitioners contend that the filing of their dependency or neglect petition vested the juvenile court with exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the matter and that the district court has no jurisdiction at a later time to issue a writ of habeas corpus respecting the custody of the child. Under the circumstances of this case, we agree.
The Children's Code confers exclusive original jurisdiction of all dependency and neglect proceedings upon juvenile courts. Section 19-1-104(1)(c), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). 6 See, e.g., People ex rel. A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo.1982); People ex rel. M.D.C.M., 34 Colo.App. 91, 522 P.2d 1234 (1974). Such jurisdiction is quite broad in scope. Jaramillo v. District Court, 173 Colo. 459, 480 P.2d 841 (1971). Juvenile courts are creatures of statute, however, and their jurisdiction does not extend beyond that established by the General Assembly. Johnson v. Black, 137 Colo. 119, 322 P.2d 99 (1958). Thus, this court has recognized that juvenile courts ordinarily do not have jurisdiction to determine custody disputes. Kearney v. Blue, 134 Colo. 217, 301 P.2d 515 (1956).
Section 19-1-104(5) of the Children's Code expressly addresses one aspect of the inevitable conflict which arises from the fact that juvenile and district courts may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over cases affecting the interests of a particular child, as follows:
The statute recognizes that in litigation involving custody of minor children different courts may be asked to resolve specific disputes over particular issues. Section 5(a) establishes the supremacy of the jurisdiction of the juvenile court to resolve the issue of dependency or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Antolovich v. Brown Group Retail, Inc.
... ... No. 04CA1528 ... Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. IV ... August 23, 2007 ... Hannon, Frederick W. Ganz, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellants and ... See City of Westminster v. Centric-Jones Constructors, ... of real property in this state, made by county assessors, affords no criterion whatever of the ... Barber, 799 P.2d 936, 940 (Colo.1990). Second, neither case considered an analogous situation ... See S.E. Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. Cache Creek Mining Trust, 854 P.2d 167, 172 ... ...
-
City of Northglenn v. Ibarra
...83, 601 P.2d 653 (1979), (finding jurisdiction in both juvenile and municipal courts for shoplifting); cf. City and County of Denver v. Dist. Court, 675 P.2d 312, 314 (Colo.1984). Northglenn's ordinance clearly does not authorize something that the Children's Code, or any other statute, for......
-
R.E.N. v. City of Colorado Springs
...Code implicitly recognizes that municipal courts retain concurrent jurisdiction over such offenses. Cf. City and County of Denver v. District Court, 675 P.2d 312, 314 (Colo.1984) ("juvenile and district courts may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over cases affecting the interests of a part......
-
People ex rel. N.D.V.
...of statute, and their jurisdiction does not extend beyond that established by the General Assembly. City & County of Denver v. District Court, 675 P.2d 312, 314 (Colo.1984); Johnson v. Black, 137 Colo. 119, 322 P.2d 99 I conclude that under the statutes addressing a court's subject matter j......
-
Family Law, 0222 COBJ, Vol. 51, No. 2 Pg. 28
...[16] In re Marriage of Eckman, 645 P.2d 866, 867 (Colo.App. 1982). [17] [17] City and Cty of Denver v. Dist Court of Second Judicial Dist, 675 P.2d 312, 314 (Colo. [18] [18] People in the Interest of J.G., 2021 COA 47, 1 13. [19] [19] See CRS § 19-2.5-103. [20] [20] See Judge Benjamin Barr ......
-
Family Law
...[16] In re Marriage of Eckman, 645 P.2d 866, 867 (Colo.App. 1982). [17] City and Cty of Denver v. Dist Court of Second Judicial Dist, 675 P.2d 312, 314 (Colo. 1984). [18] People in the Interest of J.G., 2021 COA 47, 1 13. [19] See CRS § 19-2.5-103. [20] See Judge Benjamin Barr Lindsey (1869......