In re J.C.T.

• Citation: 176 P.3d 726
• Decision Date: 03 December 2007
• Docket Number: No. 06SC780.,06SC780.
• Parties: In re the Matter of J.C.T., a minor child. Paula Constantakis Young, Guardian Ad Litem; and Three Affiliated Tribes, Petitioners v. C.A.H., Respondent.
• Court: Supreme Court of Colorado

176 P.3d 726

In re the Matter of J.C.T., a minor child.

Paula Constantakis Young, Guardian Ad Litem; and Three Affiliated Tribes, Petitioners v. C.A.H., Respondent.

No. 06SC780.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

December 3, 2007.

Paula Constantakis Young, Denver, Colorado, Guardian Ad Litem for J.C.T.

American Indian Law Clinic, Jill E. Tompkins, Boulder, Colorado, Attorneys for Petitioner Three Affiliated Tribes.

Holme Roberts & Owen LLP, Richard L. Gabriel, Timothy M. Reynolds, David A. Tonini, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Respondent C.A.H.

Chief Justice MULLARKEY delivered the Opinion of the Court.

I. Introduction

We granted certiorari to consider the limits of the probate court's jurisdiction with regard to the guardianship of minors and its consideration of their best interests.¹ J.C.T., a now ten-year-old boy, is at the heart of this conflict. Since before his first birthday, J.C.T. has been under the supervision of the Denver probate court. Based on a challenge by Respondent C.A.H. ("Guardian 1"), a former guardian of J.C.T., the court of appeals in In re J.C.T., 155 P.3d 452 (Colo.App.2006), held that the probate court exceeded its subject matter jurisdiction during proceedings involving J.C.T.'s guardianship by intruding into an area of jurisdiction exclusively vested in the juvenile court. The court of appeals therefore vacated the probate court's order denying Guardian 1's petition for guardianship, and remanded the case with instructions to certify the action to the juvenile court. We now reverse the court of appeals' decision and reinstate the probate court's order.

2) Whether the court of appeals erred when it held that the appointment of the guardian ad litem as temporary guardian divested the probate court of jurisdiction and vested jurisdiction with the juvenile court under section 19-3-102, C.R.S. (2006).

We hold that, in evaluating the child's best interests, the probate court did not exceed its jurisdiction by directing the guardian ad litem ("GAL") to find a permanent guardian for J.C.T. or by considering the potential for an eventual adoption. In addition, we find that the appointment of the GAL as temporary guardian for J.C.T. did not divest the probate court of its jurisdiction.

II. Facts and Procedural History

J.C.T. was born on February 25, 1997. When he was only ten months old, his mother placed him in the care of an acquaintance, Guardian 1, and subsequently consented to a probate court granting guardianship of J.C.T. to Guardian 1. Soon thereafter, as part of a later hearing, the probate court appointed Paula Constantakis Young as the GAL to investigate Guardian 1's fitness. Guardian 1 was found to be a proper legal guardian, and J.C.T. remained in her care for a period of four years. J.C.T.'s father has not been identified and has not been involved in this matter.

At the time of her appointment, the GAL requested involvement from the Denver Department of Human Services ("DHS"). DHS declined to participate on the grounds that Guardian 1 was properly caring for J.C.T. and there was an existing forum for Guardian 1 and J.C.T.'s mother to obtain court orders, namely, the probate court.

J.C.T. lived with Guardian 1 and her family in both Colorado and Georgia. During that four year time period, J.C.T. experienced considerable mental and behavioral problems. He was hospitalized for depression for four days in 2001, at the age of four.

In 2002, J.C.T. and Guardian 1's, daughter visited Guardian 1's mother, A.S. ("Guardian 2"), and stepfather in Colorado. During the visit, Guardian 2 and her husband initiated a proceeding before a Georgia court, alleging that both children had been sexually and physically abused and seeking custody of them. The GAL was reappointed for J.C.T., and the GAL entered an appearance in Georgia. The Georgia court ultimately entered a directed verdict in Guardian 1's favor, immediately returning custody of Guardian 1's daughter to her. The court refused jurisdiction over J.C.T., however, and instead deferred to the Denver probate court. The probate court then issued an order suspending Guardian 1's guardianship of J.C.T. and appointing Guardian 2 as temporary guardian. In doing, so, the court specifically stated that it was not finding that Guardian 1 acted improperly toward J.C.T.; rather, the court determined that it was in J.C.T.'s best interest that the status quo be maintained, and that J.C.T. should stay in Colorado where he was visiting, because relocating him could further jeopardize his mental health.

In February 2003, the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation, also known as the Three Affiliated Tribes ("the. Tribes"), moved to intervene, asserting their standing on the basis of J.C.T.'s status as an enrolled tribal member and thus, an Indian child under the Indian Child Welfare Act ("the ICWA"), 25 U.S.C. sections 1901-63 (2005). The Tribes also filed a motion to transfer jurisdiction to the tribal court. While acknowledging the applicability of the ICWA, the probate court found good cause not to transfer jurisdiction under 25 U.S.C. section 1911(b), and denied the motion.² The Tribes did not appeal this ruling.

J.C.T. continued to live in Colorado with Guardian 2 for approximately two years. Near the end of that time, a therapist, who evaluated J.C.T. under court orders, recommended that J.C.T. stay with Guardian 2, but cautioned that other resources should be considered for the future because Guardian 2 was sixty nine years old and J.C.T. only seven years old. As time went on, the GAL expressed increasing concern to the probate, court regarding Guardian 2's mental state, her communication with J.C.T. about the case, and her inability to properly manage J.C.T.'s asthma.

In August 2004, the probate court issued an order, expressing its doubts as to whether any of the parties were fit to serve as J.C.T.'s guardian. At that time, the court directed the GAL to find a permanent successor guardian for J.C.T. Several weeks later, the court terminated Guardian 2's temporary guardianship and appointed A.B. ("Guardian 3") as a substitute temporary guardian. Guardian 3 is a foster mother and experienced child advocate, and was intended by the probate court to serve as a neutral and independent placement for J.C.T. Over time, the GAL and J.C.T.'s therapist realized that Guardian 3 was actually aligned with Guardian 1, allowing contact between J.C.T. and Guardian 1 that the probate court had previously limited, Moreover, Guardian 3 began to interfere with J.C.T.'s therapy. These acts were in direct violation of the probate court's orders.

During this time, the GAL began working with adoption agencies with the hope of finding a family that could serve as permanent successor guardian for J.C.T., and possibly an eventual adoptive family, in the event that the court did not choose Guardian 1 or Guardian 2. The court heard evidence regarding Guardian 1's petition for permanent guardianship of J.C.T. at two hearings in the spring of 2005. The GAL testified at the second hearing that there was a family of Native American ancestry that was interested in serving as a permanent guardian and possible adoptive family for J.C.T. At the end of this hearing, the court removed Guardian 3 as temporary guardian, citing her previous violations of court orders and noting her inability to remain impartial. In doing so, the court declared J.C.T. to be a ward of the court temporarily and stated that J.C.T. would stay with the GAL until the court made a decision regarding permanent guardianship. In its written order, the court referred to the GAL as the "Guardian Designee."

Soon after that hearing, the probate court denied Guardian 1's petition for guardianship. Guardian 1 appealed from this order. Finding that the probate court exceeded its jurisdiction by engaging in de facto adoption proceedings, the court of appeals vacated the probate court's order and remanded the case with instructions to certify the action to the juvenile court. We now reverse the court of appeals' ruling.

III. The Probate Court's Proper Exercise of Jurisdiction

Subject matter jurisdiction is "a court's power to resolve a dispute in which it renders judgment." Trans Shuttle, Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 58 P.3d 47, 49-50 (Colo. 2002) (citing In re Marriage of Stroud, 631 P.2d 168, 170 (Colo.1981)). The issue of jurisdiction is a legal question that we review de novo. Swieckowski v. City of Fort Collins, 934 P.2d 1380, 1384 (Colo.1997). In doing so, we consider both "the nature of the claim and the relief sought." Trans Shuttle, 58 P.3d at 50.

Under the Colorado Constitution article VI, section 9(3) and section 13-9-103(1)(f), C.R.S. (2007), the Denver probate court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the "administration of guardianships of minors." Moreover, the court has "full power to make orders, judgments, and decrees and take all other action necessary and proper to administer justice in the matters which come before it." § 15-10-302, C.R.S. (2007). In this case, the court of appeals acknowledged the jurisdiction of the probate court over issues of J.C.T.'s guardianship. However, the court ruled that the probate court, exceeded its jurisdiction when it instructed the GAL in August 2004 to find a permanent guardian for J.C.T., and considered the potential for an eventual adoption in evaluating the best interests of J.C.T.

The court of appeals reasoned that these actions amounted to a de facto adoption proceeding, an area within the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court.³ The Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that the probate court was merely exercising its jurisdiction over a guardianship matter. The essential question before us, therefore, is whether the probate court was conducting a de facto adoption proceeding. We find that it was not.

The Colorado Children's Code states that proceedings "for the adoption of a person of any age" fall within the exclusive and...