In re Petition of RGB, No. 03CA1428.

Decision Date12 August 2004
Docket NumberNo. 03CA1428.
Citation98 P.3d 958
PartiesIn the Matter of the PETITION OF R.G.B., II, Petitioner-Appellee, For the Adoption of T.C.C., a Child, and Concerning P.J.C., Respondent-Appellant.
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

Beltz & West, PC, Daniel A. West, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Petitioner-Appellee.

Davide C. Migliaccio, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Respondent-Appellant.

Opinion by Judge PICCONE.

In this stepparent adoption proceeding, P.J.C. (father) appeals from a district court order affirming the magistrate's order of termination of the parent-child legal relationship between him and his child, T.C.C. We vacate the orders and remand for additional proceedings.

Father contends the magistrate erred in failing to advise him of his right to a hearing before a district court judge. We agree.

Initially, we reject the stepfather's assertion that father's failure to raise this contention in his petition for review in district court precludes appellate review. Natural parents have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the companionship, care, custody, and management of their children. B.B. v. People, 785 P.2d 132 (Colo.1990)(it is essential that a state accord fundamentally fair procedures to a parent when it seeks to terminate a parent-child legal relationship). To protect this interest, "a court must provide parents with fundamentally fair procedures if termination of parental rights is sought." In re Petition of R.H.N., 710 P.2d 482, 487 (Colo.1985).

Termination of parental rights is a drastic remedy. Recognizing this concept, the General Assembly has imposed various conditions which must be satisfied prior to entry of a judgment terminating a parent's rights. And, where, as here, the General Assembly makes those requirements mandatory by use of the term "shall," we may not ignore a total failure to meet those requirements.

People in Interest of Baby Girl D., 44 Colo.App. 192, 194, 610 P.2d 1086, 1088 (1980) (citations omitted).

Where an error of the trial court is considered fundamental or involves a miscarriage of justice, we may consider the issue for the first time on appeal. People in Interest of A.E., 914 P.2d 534 (Colo.App.1996). Here, the failure to advise resulted in a fundamentally unfair procedure. See also People in Interest of Baby Girl D., supra.

The Colorado Rules for Magistrates apply to all proceedings conducted by magistrates in district courts, including proceedings in juvenile matters. C.R.M. 2. Pursuant to C.R.M. 6(d), a juvenile court magistrate has the powers and is subject to the limitations set forth in article 1 of the Colorado Children's Code (Code), and the magistrate must conduct proceedings in accordance with the Code. C.R.M. 6(d); see People in Interest of A.P.H., 98 P.3d 955, 2004 WL 1794662 (Colo.App. No. 03CA2027, Aug. 12, 2004).

The juvenile court or district court has exclusive original jurisdiction in proceedings for adoption. Sections 19-1-103(70), 19-1-104(1)(g), C.R.S.2003. A magistrate may hear any case or matter under the juvenile court's jurisdiction, except where a jury trial has been requested pursuant to § 19-2-107, C.R.S.2003, or where transfer hearings are held pursuant to § 19-2-518, C.R.S.2003. Section 19-1-108(1), C.R.S.2003; C.S. v. People, 83 P.3d 627 (Colo.2004). The magistrate, however, is a hearing officer who acts with limited authority. People in Interest of S.S.T., 38 Colo.App. 110, 553 P.2d 82 (1976); see also Goderstad v. Dillon Cos., 971 P.2d 693 (Colo.App.1998)

.

As pertinent here, § 19-1-108(3)(a), C.R.S.2003, provides:

During the initial advisement of the rights of any party, the magistrate shall inform the party that ... he or she has the right to a hearing before the judge in the first instance and that he or she may waive that right but that, by waiving that right, he or she is bound by the findings and recommendations of the magistrate, subject to a request for review as provided in subsection (5) of this section.

(Emphasis added.)

By using the term "shall," the General Assembly has imposed a mandatory requirement. People in Interest of A.P.H., supra; People in Interest of C.L.S., 705 P.2d 1026 (Colo.App.1985)

; see People in Interest of Baby Girl D., supra (total failure of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • People ex rel. N.A.T.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • March 9, 2006
    ...must also advise the parent that he or she has the right to a hearing before a judge. Section 19-1-108(3)(a), C.R.S.2005; In re R.G.B., 98 P.3d 958 (Colo.App.2004). Waiver of the formal advisement pursuant to § 19-3-202(1) includes a waiver of the § 19-1-108(3)(a) advisement of the right to......
  • People ex rel. M.B.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • January 23, 2020
    ...in a dependency and neglect proceeding. However, such issues have been reviewed to prevent a miscarriage of justice. In re R.G.B. , 98 P.3d 958, 959 (Colo. App. 2004) ("Where an error of the trial court is considered fundamental or involves a miscarriage of justice, we may consider the issu......
  • Kreft v. Adolph Coors Co.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • October 4, 2007
    ...rights); N.A.H. v. S.L.S., 9 P.3d 354, 357 (Colo.2000)(concerning competing presumptions in a paternity proceeding); In re R.G.B., 98 P.3d 958, 959 (Colo.App.2004) (concerning magistrate's advisement of right to a hearing before a judge in a termination of parental rights Thus, because plai......
  • Andrews v. Miller, Court of Appeals No. 18CA2143
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • December 19, 2019
    ...2019 ("District court magistrates may hear such matters as are determined by rule of the supreme court ...."); see also In re R.G.B. , 98 P.3d 958, 960 (Colo. App. 2004) (a magistrate is a hearing officer who acts with limited authority). The Colorado Rules for Magistrates set forth the aut......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Raising New Issues on Appeal
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 46-7, July 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...P.3d 816, 822-23 (Colo. 2017); Robinson, 179 P.3d at 1009; Hagos v. People, 288 P.3d 116, 121-22 (Colo. 2012); In re Petition of R.G.B., 98 P.3d 958, 959 (Colo.App. 2004). See generally People v. Falls, 58 P.3d 1140, 1141 (Colo.App. 2002) (in Crim. P. 35(c) proceeding, reviewing unpreserved......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT