E.P. v. District Court of Garfield County, s. 84SA241

Decision Date04 February 1985
Docket NumberNos. 84SA241,84SA213,s. 84SA241
Citation696 P.2d 254
PartiesE.P., Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT OF GARFIELD COUNTY, Colorado, and Honorable Gavin D. Litwiller, a Judge assigned to said Court, Respondents. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT In and For the 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF GARFIELD, State of Colorado; The Honorable Gavin D. Litwiller, a Judge thereof, Respondents.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Robert B. Emerson, Carbondale, for petitioner in No. 84SA241.

Earl Rhodes, Garfield Co. Atty., Glenwood Springs, Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Cheryl J. Hanson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents in No. 84SA241.

Earl G. Rhodes, Garfield Co. Atty., Glenwood Springs, for petitioner in No. 84SA213.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Cheryl J. Hanson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents in No. 84SA213.

Petre & Zimmerman, P.C., Daniel B. Petre, Glenwood Springs, Guardian ad litem for Minor Children.

QUINN, Justice.

These consolidated proceedings are brought pursuant to C.A.R. 21 and arise out of the same dependency proceeding presently pending in the juvenile division of the District Court of Garfield County. Both cases raise issues concerning the nature and scope of the court's authority under the Colorado Children's Code to enter a dependency adjudication with respect to nonresident children who are only temporarily present in the state of Colorado. In E.P. v. District Court of Garfield County (No. 84SA241), we granted the petition of E.P., the mother of three minor children and their legal custodian under a Wyoming decree of divorce, for a rule to show cause why the juvenile division of the district court, after having entered an order authorizing the Garfield County Department of Social Services to place the children in a shelter facility, should not be prohibited from conducting an adjudicatory hearing on dependency or neglect when, as here, the children normally reside with their mother in the state of Wyoming and were only present in Colorado for a short duration in the temporary care of their father, L.P., when the shelter order was entered. In People v. District Court in and for the Ninth Judicial District (No. 84SA213), we simultaneously granted the People's request for a rule directing the juvenile court to show cause why it should not be required to adjudicate the children dependent or neglected on the basis of the admissions by L.P., the children's father, to the People's dependency petition. We now make the rule absolute in E.P. v. District Court of Garfield County and discharge the rule in People v. District Court in and for the Ninth Judicial District.

I.

E.P., who is the mother of the three children and the petitioner in 84SA241, married L.P. in Evanston, Wyoming, on April 2, 1976. Prior to her marriage E.P. had been a lifelong resident of the state of Wyoming. Three female children were born of the marriage: M.P., seven years old, and R.P. and D.P., both five years of age. E.P. and L.P. were divorced in the District Court of Sweetwater County, Wyoming, on March 2, 1982. The Wyoming divorce decree granted custody of the three children to E.P., with visitation rights in L.P. After the divorce, E.P. and the children continued to reside in the state of Wyoming and L.P. moved to Glenwood Springs, Colorado, where he subsequently married C.P.

In July 1983 E.P. was required to undergo surgery and arranged for L.P. to pick up the three children and to keep them at his home in Glenwood Springs for a temporary visit while E.P. recuperated. Shortly after L.P. brought the children to Glenwood Springs, he contacted the Garfield County Department of Social Services because he believed D.P., one of the five year old girls, was exhibiting behavior indicative of prior sexual abuse. At about the same time the Department of Social Services received reports from a third party that the three children were being mistreated while in L.P.'s custody. After the Department conducted an investigation of the alleged child abuse, 1 the juvenile division of the district court authorized temporary shelter care for the children, and pursuant to section 19-2-103, 8 C.R.S. (1978 & 1984 Supp.), set the matter for a shelter hearing on August 4, 1983. L.P. and C.P. attended the hearing, but E.P. had not been notified and consequently was not present. As a result of the hearing, the court granted temporary custody of the children to the Department and authorized the placement of the children in a shelter care facility and the filing of a dependency petition. 2

On August 30, 1983, the People filed a petition requesting the court to adjudicate the children dependent or neglected on the following grounds: that the children lacked proper parental care due to the acts or omissions of L.P., their father, in allowing C.P., his wife, to subject the children to psychological abuse; that C.P. had subjected the children to mistreatment or abuse; and that the children's natural mother, E.P., while residing with the children in the state of Wyoming, had allowed another to subject them to mistreatment or abuse. The petition stated that termination of the parent-child relationship was a possible remedy in the event of a dependency adjudication and requested the court to enter such orders concerning the care, custody, support, and parental relationship of the children as were necessary in the children's interests.

E.P. was served by mail with the petition and, through appointed counsel, denied the allegations on November 22, 1983. 3 L.P., in contrast, admitted that the children had been exposed to an injurious home environment while in his custody due to C.P.'s unstable emotional condition and excessive use of alcohol, and also acknowledged that he had reason to believe the three children had been abused while in the custody of E.P. in Wyoming. The court set the case for trial to a jury on March 12, 1984.

Prior to the trial date E.P. moved to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds. Although conceding that the court had the authority to provide shelter care for the children in the emergency arising out of their temporary stay with L.P., it was E.P.'s contention that, because she and the children were permanent residents of the state of Wyoming, neither the alleged acts of mistreatment or abuse by L.P. and C.P. in Colorado nor the alleged acts of abuse by E.P. in Wyoming provided a Colorado court with a sufficient interest in the children and the family relationship to constitutionally permit it to exercise jurisdiction over the custody status of the children. The People, also prior to trial, requested an adjudication of dependency or neglect based on L.P.'s admission that the children had been subjected to mistreatment or abuse while in his temporary custody in Colorado and his assertion that the children had been abused while in the custody of E.P. in Wyoming.

On March 16, 1984, the court denied E.P.'s motion to dismiss, ruling that the physical presence of the children in Colorado constituted a sufficient jurisdictional basis for it to proceed with the trial of the dependency petition. 4 The court, however ruled that evidence of E.P.'s alleged acts or omissions in the state of Wyoming would not be admissible to support the People's dependency claim based on alleged conduct occurring in the state of Colorado, but would only be admissible at a subsequent dispositional hearing in the event the children were adjudicated dependent or neglected. Finally, the court denied the People's request for a dependency adjudication based on L.P.'s admission to acts or omissions occurring in the state of Colorado because, in the court's view, the admission of one parent to the dependency status of the children cannot work to deprive the nonadmitting parent of a right to a trial on the dependency issue.

Both E.P. and the People thereafter filed original proceedings in this court. E.P. basically asserts that the juvenile court's jurisdiction in this case was limited to providing emergency care for the children, and since the emergency was abated when the children were removed from L.P.'s home, the court must first refer the case back to Wyoming authorities before proceeding to a trial on the People's dependency petition. The People, in contrast, argue that the juvenile court does have jurisdiction to enter a dependency adjudication in this case and further contend that the court exceeded its jurisdiction when it refused to adjudicate the children dependent or neglected based solely on L.P.'s admission to the dependency petition. The respondent court contends that, notwithstanding the significant interest that Wyoming has in the children and family relationship, a Colorado court is vested with jurisdiction under the doctrine of parens patriae to enter a dependency adjudication based on the physical presence of the children in this state, although such adjudication may not be based on the unilateral admission of one parent only, when the other parent has denied the allegations of dependency or neglect. We conclude that the juvenile court, after the entry of temporary protective orders for the children, was required to stay further proceedings on the dependency petition and to refer the case to the Wyoming court that entered the original custody decree in order to provide that state with an opportunity to assume jurisdiction over the matter of custody. In view of this disposition, it is unnecessary for us to resolve whether the juvenile court can appropriately enter a dependency adjudication based solely on the admission of L.P. to the dependency petition.

II.

E.P.'s initial challenge is cast in terms of due process of law. She basically claims that, because she and the children are permanent residents and domiciliaries of the state of Wyoming, a Colorado juvenile court lacks sufficient interest in the children to adjudicate the children's status in a dependency...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Custody of C.C.R.S., In re
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • November 18, 1993
    ...and adoption in pari materia with § 14-10-123 in order to determine the propriety of the district court's order. See E.P. v. District Court, 696 P.2d 254 (Colo.1985). When two or more statutes relating to the same subject are implicated, they must be considered and construed together to asc......
  • Butler v. Bd. of Cnty. Com'Rs for San Miguel Cnty., 18-1012
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • March 29, 2019
    ...parens patriae, in which the state asserts an interest in the protection of children who cannot care for themselves. E.P. v. Dist. Court, 696 P.2d 254, 258 (Colo. 1985) ("The state as parens patriae has a continuing responsibility to provide for the protection of children within its borders......
  • S.O.V. v. People in Interest of M.C., 94SC727
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • April 8, 1996
    ...moreover, has a common law duty to represent children in certain situations under the doctrine of parens patriae. E.P. v. District Court, 696 P.2d 254, 258 (Colo.1985). When a State files suit in its role as parens patriae, it is in privity with the citizens it represents and such citizens ......
  • People v. C.N., Court of Appeals No. 18CA0313
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • November 15, 2018
    ...a sufficient jurisdictional basis to permit a court to adjudicate the dependency status of the child in that state." E.P. v. Dist. Court , 696 P.2d 254, 259 (Colo. 1985). ¶ 17 Venue, on the other hand, refers to "the locality where an action may be properly brought." State v. Borquez , 751 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Waking the Dormant Pkpa in Colorado
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 10-1992, October 1992
    • Invalid date
    ...P.2d 935, 945 (Colo.App. 1987) (dissenting opinion). 7. Barden v. Blau, 712 P.2d 481, 484 (Colo. 1986). 8. See E. P. v. District Court, 696 P.2d 254 (Colo. 1985); In re Thomas, 537 P.2d 1095 (Colo.App. 1975). In a concurring opinion in Department of Social Services v. District Court, 742 P.......

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