People In Interest of D.Z.B.
| Decision Date | 23 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals No. 14CA2167 |
| Citation | 436 P.3d 534 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, IN the INTEREST OF D.Z.B., Juvenile-Appellee, and Concerning Arapahoe County Department of Human Services, Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Ryann S. Hardman, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Juvenile-Appellee
Ronald Carl, County Attorney, Michael Valentine, Deputy County Attorney, Danielle Newman, Assistant County Attorney, Aurora, Colorado, for Appellant
Opinion by CHIEF JUDGE LOEB
¶ 1 The Arapahoe County Department of Human Services (the Department) appeals the juvenile court's order placing D.Z.B., a juvenile offender, in a Department-managed residential child care facility in lieu of bond while the juvenile's adjudication was pending. The Department does not appeal D.Z.B.'s final adjudication as delinquent or his ultimate sentence to the same residential facility. Instead, the Department asserts that the court did not have the authority to place D.Z.B. in the facility preadjudication and in lieu of bond over the Department's objection. Because we conclude that the Department lacks standing, we dismiss the Department's appeal and express no opinion on the merits of the Department's appeal.
¶ 2 The Department requested that the juvenile court certify the court file for D.Z.B.'s juvenile proceedings for appeal, but did not request any relevant transcripts. Thus, the facts below are taken from the records in the court file.
¶ 3 D.Z.B. had a complex history with the Department and the juvenile court beginning in 2012. Prior to the history recited below, the juvenile court placed D.Z.B. in the care of the Department in lieu of bond on multiple occasions. He repeatedly violated the court-imposed conditions of his bond, and the juvenile court placed him in increasingly supervised services (i.e. from in-home care, to nonresidential treatment, to foster care, etc.).
¶ 4 As relevant here, in early 2014, D.Z.B. pleaded guilty in two delinquency cases. The juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent and sentenced him to probation that included a placement at Jefferson Hills, a residential child care and treatment facility managed by the Department. Apparently, this was the first time D.Z.B. had been placed in a residential treatment facility. D.Z.B. entered Jefferson Hills in February 2014, and he was diagnosed with significant mental health and developmental issues during that stay.
¶ 5 D.Z.B. subsequently began treatment and therapy and did well at Jefferson Hills. He was successfully discharged from the facility into the care of his father and, despite the recommendation from Jefferson Hills, D.Z.B. received no in-home services following his release.
¶ 6 Within two months of his release from Jefferson Hills, D.Z.B. was charged with three additional delinquent acts. D.Z.B. was still on probation at this time and, consequently, the prosecution sought to revoke or modify probation in his two prior cases. D.Z.B. was appointed a public defender and a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) for his pending delinquency and probation revocation matters. The public defender requested that the Department investigate treatment and confinement options for D.Z.B. at a pretrial conference on August, 12, 2014.
¶ 7 At a hearing on September 5, 2014, the GAL and defense counsel argued for residential treatment both prior to adjudication and as a sentence if D.Z.B. was adjudicated delinquent.1
¶ 8 At the same hearing, in response to defense counsel's earlier request for treatment options, the Department stated through counsel that D.Z.B. had been accepted to four residential child care facilities. However, at that time, the Department objected to D.Z.B. being placed in one of the child care facilities in lieu of bond and recommended that he be placed in the Division of Youth Corrections if he were ultimately adjudicated delinquent. The Department further argued that the juvenile court did not have the authority to order the Department to place D.Z.B. in a residential child care facility prior to his adjudication when the Department objected to such a placement.
¶ 9 The juvenile court ordered briefing on the issue of the court's authority to place D.Z.B. in a residential child care facility preadjudication over the Department's objection. The GAL, defense counsel, and the Department filed briefs with the juvenile court one week later on September 12. The prosecution apparently took no stance as it did not file a brief.
¶ 10 On September 17, the juvenile court held a hearing regarding preadjudication placement. The minute order in the record reflects that the juvenile court allowed those present (the district attorney, defense counsel, the GAL, and counsel for the Department) to make a record regarding their respective views on placement. As previously noted, the transcripts from the court's hearings are not part of the record on appeal. However, we assume that the Department, D.Z.B., and the GAL made arguments consistent with their briefs. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court issued a minute order that "placement would be in lieu of bond to [the Department] at an appropriate residential child care facility as soon as placement is available."
¶ 11 On September 19, the juvenile court signed a temporary custody order, referencing its placement and bond order from September 17, and placed D.Z.B. in the custody of the Department effective on September 22, 2014, when placement at Jefferson Hills was predicted to become available.2
¶ 12 At some point, the Department requested a written order from the juvenile court regarding the court's ruling that it had the authority to order placement with the Department in lieu of bond. The court issued a detailed written order on September 22, 2014, concluding that it had the statutory authority to place D.Z.B. in lieu of bond despite the Department's objection; finding that it was in the best interests of D.Z.B. and the community to order such a placement; and placing D.Z.B. in Jefferson Hills in lieu of bond.
¶ 13 On October 16, the juvenile court adjudicated D.Z.B. delinquent and sentenced him to probation on the condition that he continue treatment at Jefferson Hills.
¶ 14 The Department now appeals the juvenile court's September 22 written order concluding that the court had the authority to place D.Z.B. in Jefferson Hills prior to adjudication and in lieu of bond over the Department's objection.3
¶ 15 Because of the procedural posture of this case, the public defender's office is defending the juvenile court's September 22 order even though the outcome of this appeal will have no practical effect on D.Z.B.
¶ 16 In its answer brief, the public defender proffers five threshold issues that it asserts necessitate the dismissal of this appeal: mootness; untimeliness of the Department's appeal; an insufficient record for appeal; the lack of a final appealable order; and the Department's lack of standing to prosecute the appeal.
¶ 17 Because we agree that the Department lacks standing, we do not address the remaining threshold issues. We also express no opinion on the merits of the Department's appeal, and do not address those issues as well.
¶ 18 A court does not have jurisdiction over a case unless the plaintiff has standing to bring it. E.g. , First Comp Ins. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 252 P.3d 1221, 1222 (Colo. App. 2011). Therefore, we must first determine whether the Department has standing before we can address the merits of its appeal. See id. If the Department does not have standing, we must dismiss the appeal. Id.
¶ 19 Standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any time. Ainscough v. Owens , 90 P.3d 851, 855 (Colo. 2004) ; Wibby v. Boulder Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs , 2016 COA 104, ¶ 9, 409 P.3d 516.
¶ 20 Standing is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. E.g., Hawg Tools, LLC v. Newsco Int'l Energy Servs., Inc. , 2016 COA 176M, ¶ 47, 411 P.3d 1126.
¶ 21 To establish standing, an appellant must demonstrate that (1) it suffered injury in fact and (2) the injury was to a legally protected interest. First Comp Ins. , 252 P.3d at 1223.
¶ 22 An injury that is overly indirect or incidental to the action is not sufficient. Id. Instead, the injury prong of the standing analysis requires a "concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues that parties argue to the courts." Id. (quoting Ainscough , 90 P.3d at 856 ).
¶ 23 "Whether the plaintiff's alleged injury was to a legally protected interest ‘is a question of whether the plaintiff has a claim for relief under the constitution, the common law, a statute, or a rule or regulation.’ " Barber v. Ritter , 196 P.3d 238, 246 (Colo. 2008) (quoting Ainscough , 90 P.3d at 856 ).
¶ 24 When, as here, an appellant brings a claim under a statute, the standing inquiry turns on whether the statutory provision "can properly be understood as granting persons in the [appellant]'s position a right to judicial relief." Vickery v. Evelyn V. Trumble Living Trust , 277 P.3d 864, 868 (Colo. App. 2011) (quoting Pomerantz v. Microsoft Corp. , 50 P.3d 929, 932 (Colo. App. 2002) ).
¶ 25 There are three factors to consider when determining whether a statute confers standing to a particular plaintiff: "(1) whether the statute specifically creates such a right in the plaintiff; (2) whether there is any indication of legislative intent to create or deny such a right; and (3) whether it is consistent with the statutory scheme to imply such a right." First Comp Ins. , 252 P.3d at 1223 (quoting Olson v. City of Golden , 53 P.3d 747, 752 (Colo. App. 2002) ); see also Taxpayers for Pub. Educ. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. , 2015 CO 50, ¶ 15, 351 P.3d 461.
¶ 26 Under certain circumstances, a nonparty to a civil action can have standing to prosecute an appeal. See, e.g. , People in Interest of...
To continue reading
Request your trial