Park Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. B.A. (In re People)

Decision Date13 June 2022
Docket Number21SA383
Citation2022 CO 27
PartiesIn Re The People of the State of Colorado in the Interest of: S.A., Child: v. B.A. and J.A. n/k/a J.W., Respondents Park County Department of Human Services, Petitioner and A.W. Special Respondent
CourtColorado Supreme Court
Original Proceeding Pursuant to C.A.R. 21 Park County District Court Case No. 21JV9 Honorable Stephen A. Groome Judge

Attorney for Child: Anne Parmley, Guardian ad litem Breckenridge, Colorado

Attorneys for Petitioner: Goodspeed Merrill Angela R. Whitford Denver, Colorado

Respondents B.A. and J.A. n/k/a J.W. and Special Respondent A.W., pro se Bailey, Colorado

Attorneys for Park County District Court: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General Grant T. Sullivan, Assistant Solicitor General Denver, Colorado

JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BOATRIGHT, JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ, JUSTICE HOOD, JUSTICE GABRIEL, JUSTICE HART, and JUSTICE SAMOUR joined.

OPINION

BERKENKOTTER, JUSTICE

¶1 We accepted original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21 to consider whether the Park County District Court, sitting as a juvenile court, erred by issuing an order requiring therapeutic visitation between the subject of a dependency or neglect proceeding and his two younger siblings, who are not parties in the proceeding. We now hold that neither the Foster Youth Siblings Bill of Rights, §§ 19-7-201 to -204, C.R.S. (2021), nor the dependency or neglect provisions of the Colorado Children's Code, §§ 19-3-100.5 to -905, C.R.S. (2021), granted the juvenile court personal jurisdiction over the siblings. Additionally, the court's personal jurisdiction over the parents and its subject matter jurisdiction over the case did not grant the court authority over the non-dependent siblings. Accordingly, we make absolute the rule to show cause, vacate the juvenile court order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Facts and Procedural History

¶2 Respondents below, B.A. and J.W., adopted S.A., a minor, and his two younger siblings. In 2020, S.A. had homicidal and suicidal ideations and allegedly acted out against his siblings. S.A. was eventually placed in foster care at the request of B.A., J.W., and A.W. (collectively, "Parents").[1] After initially opening a voluntary case, the Park County Department of Human Services ("Department") filed a petition in dependency or neglect as to S.A. The Park County District Court, sitting as a juvenile court, adjudicated S.A. dependent or neglected on September 16, 2021. No party has filed a petition in dependency or neglect on behalf of either of S.A.'s siblings, and no court has adjudicated the siblings dependent or neglected. The juvenile court, after conducting a series of hearings, reviewing the proposed treatment plans, and considering the parties' position statements, ordered therapeutic sibling visits between S.A. and his two younger siblings "[p]ursuant to [section] 19-7-204," C.R.S. (2021). The court entered this order over Parents' strenuous objection. Parents then filed a petition before this court for a Rule to Show Cause under C.A.R. 21, which we granted.[2] The Park County District Court, the Department, and S.A.'s guardian ad litem (collectively, "Responding Parties") submitted responses to the court's order for a Rule to Show Cause.

II. Analysis

¶3 We begin by discussing the applicable standards of review. We then review the law governing the jurisdiction of juvenile courts. After reviewing the law and the facts of this case, we conclude that no statute granted the juvenile court jurisdiction to enter the order requiring S.A.'s non-dependent siblings[3] to attend therapeutic visitation with him.

A. Standards of Review

¶4 Whether a juvenile court has subject matter and personal jurisdiction to enter an order is a question of law which we review de novo. People v. C.O., 2017 CO 105, ¶¶ 17, 25-33, 406 P.3d 853, 857, 858-60 (stating that questions of subject matter jurisdiction are reviewed de novo and considering whether the court had personal jurisdiction without deference to the lower court's determinations). Additionally, "[w]e review issues of statutory construction de novo." Doubleday v. People, 2016 CO 3, ¶ 19, 364 P.3d 193, 196. When we interpret a statute, our goal is to "ascertain and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly[, ] . . . giving words and phrases their plain and ordinary meanings." Id. (citation omitted). We read the statute "as a whole, giving consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of its parts." Id. at ¶ 20, 364 P.3d at 196. If, based on this analysis, the statute is not ambiguous, we need not go any further. Id.

B. Applicable Law

¶5 A court's jurisdiction is defined as "its 'power to entertain and to render a judgment on a particular claim.' Put differently, 'jurisdiction' is the court's authority to hear and determine a matter; it is the court's power to decide." C.O., ¶ 21, 406 P.3d at 858 (citation omitted) (quoting In re Est. of Ongaro, 998 P.2d 1097, 1103 (Colo. 2000)). To issue orders, a court must have two types of jurisdiction: (1) subject matter jurisdiction-the power to determine a specific type of claim; and (2) personal jurisdiction-the power over a specific party. Id. at ¶ 22-24, 406 P.3d at 858; People in Int. of Clinton, 762 P.2d 1381, 1386-87 (Colo. 1988). Without personal jurisdiction, a court is "powerless to proceed" and cannot enter binding orders against a party. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999) (quoting Emps. Reinsurance Corp. v. Bryant, 299 U.S. 374, 382 (1937)).

¶6 District courts are typically courts of general subject matter jurisdiction with wide-sweeping powers. Colo. Const. art. VI, § 9(1); Matter of A.W., 637 P.2d 366, 373 (Colo. 1981). However, at times, district courts also act as juvenile courts, as was the case here. See § 19-1-103(89), C.R.S. (2021). And juvenile courts, as creatures of statute, have "no jurisdiction except that provided by statute." Pueblo Cnty. Comm'rs v. Dist. Ct., 708 P.2d 466, 467 (Colo. 1985); see, e.g., § 19-1-104, C.R.S. (2021) (listing the types of cases and parties over which juvenile courts have jurisdiction). Accordingly, we look to the governing statutory provisions to determine whether they grant juvenile courts jurisdiction over the type of claim, see, e.g., Pueblo Cnty. Comm'rs, 708 P.2d at 467 (noting that "[n]othing in the provisions of section 19-1-104 authorizes the juvenile court to" decide the claim), or party, see, e.g., C.O., ¶ 30, 406 P.3d at 859 (looking to section 19-1-104(1)(b) to determine whether the juvenile court had jurisdiction over the minor child).

C. Application

¶7 We begin by emphasizing that the question before us is not whether S.A. would benefit from therapeutic visitation with his siblings or whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in entering this order. The issue before us is a purely legal one: whether the juvenile court had jurisdiction-that is, the legal authority-to order S.A.'s non-dependent siblings to attend therapeutic visitation. We conclude it did not.

¶8 As an initial matter, we note that section 19-1-104 (the "Jurisdictional Statute"), which outlines the jurisdiction of juvenile courts and grants them authority over a wide variety of claims and parties, does not explicitly give juvenile courts jurisdiction over the non-dependent siblings of dependent or neglected children. The Jurisdictional Statute's provisions are extensive: In addition to granting juvenile courts "exclusive original jurisdiction" over cases "[c]oncerning any child who is neglected or dependent," § 19-1-104(1)(b), they also grant juvenile courts authority to "determine the legal custody of any child or to appoint a guardian of the person or legal custodian of any child who comes within the juvenile court's jurisdiction under provisions of this section," § 19-1-104(1)(c); to "terminate the legal parent-child relationship," § 19-1-104(1)(d); to issue "orders of support," § 19-1-104(1)(e); to "determine the parentage of a child and to make an order of support in connection therewith," § 19-1-104(1)(f); over "the adoption of a person of any age," § 19-1-104(1)(g); over "any youth who is voluntarily participating in the foster youth in transition program," § 19-1-104(1)(n); over "any adult who abuses, ill-treats, neglects, or abandons a child who comes within the court's jurisdiction under other provisions of this section," § 19-1-104(2); and to "issue temporary orders providing for legal custody, protection, support," or medical treatment, § 19-1-104(3)(a).

¶9 As pertinent here, however, nothing in the Jurisdictional Statute granted the juvenile court the authority it attempted to exercise: personal jurisdiction over the siblings of dependent or neglected youth when less than the entire sibling group is part of the proceeding.

¶10 It is undisputed that the juvenile court had some jurisdiction over the case. It had subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding under section 19-1-104(1)(b) because the case concerned S.A., a "child who [was adjudicated] neglected or dependent." Section 19-1-104(1)(b) also granted the juvenile court personal jurisdiction over S.A. See C.O., ¶ 20, 406 P.3d at 858 (citing section 19-1-104(1)(b) for the proposition that "[a] juvenile court's jurisdiction over a child in a dependency or neglect proceeding rests on the status of the child as neglected or dependent"). Additionally, the juvenile court had personal jurisdiction over Parents for orders related to S.A. See § 19-1-104(1)(d) ("[t]o terminate the legal parent-child relationship"), (2) ("concerning any adult who . . . neglects . . . a child who comes within the court's jurisdiction under other provisions of this section")....

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
1 books & journal articles
  • Summaries of Published Opinions
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 51-8, September 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...and (3) the PUC's conclusions were in accordance with the evidence. The district court's judgment upholding the PUC's ruling was affirmed. 2022 CO 27. No. 21SA383. In re People in the Interest of S.A. Children's Code—Dependency or Neglect Proceedings—Jurisdiction. In this opinion, the Supre......

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