People in Interest of R. J. G.
| Decision Date | 22 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--898,75--898 |
| Citation | 38 Colo.App. 148,557 P.2d 1214 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado in the Interest of R.J.G., a child, and concerning A.G. and B.G., Respondlents. The CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation, and the Department of Social Services of the City and County of Denver, Appellants, v. BROCKHURST BOYS' RANCH, INC., Intervenor-Appellee, The State of Colorado and the Department of Social Services of the State of Colorado, Appellees. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Max P. Zall, City Atty., Frank A. Elzi, Robert A. Powell, Asst. City Attys., Denver, for appellants.
Bennett, Heinicke, Morrison & Hollaway, Howard Morrison, Colorado Springs, for intervenor-appellee.
J. C. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dennis J. Sousa, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for appellees State of Colorado and Department of Social Services of the State of Colorado.
The City and County of Denver and the Department of Social Services of the City and County of Denver, respondents below, appeal from the entry of summary judgment entered by the Juvenile Court of the City and County of Denver, in favor of petitioner, Brockhurst Boys' Ranch, Inc. Respondents also appeal from the court's order denying their motion to join the State of Colorado and Department of Social Services of the State of Colorado as respondents. We affirm.
This case grew out of a delinquency action in the Denver Juvenile Court. The minor, R.J.G., was adjudicated a child in need of supervision (CHINS). In July 1972 the Denver Department of Whlfare became the legal custodian of the child, and at that time he was placed at Brockhurst Boys' Ranch in Colorado Springs.
In August 1972, R.J.G. ran away from Brockhurst. After R.J.G.'s return to Denver Juvenile Hall, and upon the failure of the Denver Department of Welfare to send the child back to the Ranch or suggest appropriate alternatives, the juvenile court ordered the return of R.J.G. to Brockhurst Boys' Ranch, at the expense of the Department of Social Services of the City and County of Denver.
In November 1973, petitioner Brockhurst, being unable to obtain payment for maintenance of R.J.G., filed a petition in the on-going (CHINS) proceedings in juvenile court requesting an order directed to the Denver Department of Welfare, the child's legal custodian, to cause why a judgment should not be entered in favor of Brockhurst in the amount of $4,411.24--the cost of R.J.G.'s stay between July 1972 and August 1973. Respondent Denver resisted the show cause order and argued first that petitioner was not a party to the on-going CHINS action and that in any event the juvenile court had no authority to enter a money judgment. It further argued that a determination of liability could not be made without joining the State as a party to the action in order to determine whether the State Department of Social Services abused its discretion in promulgating its regulations for reimbursement, and moved to join the Department of Social Services of the State of Colorado as a party.
The juvenile court granted leave for petitioner Brockhurst to intervene as an interested party, ruled that it had jurisdiction to enter a money judgment and denied Denver's motion to bring the Department of Social Services into the litigation as a necessary party. Subsequently, the court granted Brockhurst's motion for summary judgment in the amount of $4,411.24.
Denver first contends that Brockhurst is not an 'interested party' and therefore has no right to intervene in the action before the juvenile court. The Children's Code expressly contemplates participation of interested parties in juvenile cases. See Sections 19--1--108(2) and (3), and 19--3--109(3)(a), C.R.S.1973.
When the juvenile court placed R.J.G. in Brockhurst after his return, Denver challenged the placement order by means of an order to show cause in the Supreme Court. In City & County of Denver v. Juvenile Court, 182 Colo. 157, 511 P.2d 898 (1973), the court held that 'the juvenile court has the power and the duty to make such determinations as it deems appropriate regarding the custody and care of a child adjudicated to be within its exclusive jurisdiction.'
The Children's Code grants the juvenile court jurisdiction over proceedings to compel 'legally responsible persons' to support a child, § 19--7--101(1), C.R.S.1973, and grants it the power to enter orders directing persons found to have an obligation to support to pay such sums as are reasonable under the circumstances, § 19--7--103, C.R.S.1973. Further, the court has the power to 'issue writs of execution for the collection of accrued and unpaid installments of support orders.' Section 19--7--104(2), C.R.S.1973. This language is specifically not limited to parents, and therefore, the custodian (Denver) of an adjudicated CHINS (R.J.G.) with a legal obligation to support that child is properly within the scope of the juvenile court jurisdiction and can be compelled to pay support for the maintenance of said child.
Since the juvenile court has the power to compel legally responsible persons to support a child, it necessarily follows that a person furnishing support to a child in accordance with an order of the juvenile court has the right to intervene in a CHINS proceedings as an interested party for the purpose of recovering the cost of that support.
Denver also challenges...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colorado Div. of Employment and Training, Dept. of Labor and Employment v. Industrial Com'n of State of Colo.
... ... People in Interest of R.J.G., 38 Colo.App. 148, 557 P.2d 1214 (1976), aff'd sub nom. City and County of Denver v. Brockhurst Boys' Ranch, 195 Colo. 22, ... ...
-
In re Marriage of Bergeson-Flanders
... ... but wished to continue living with maternal grandmother. The ... CFI opined that it would not be in the child's best ... interest to give father sole decision-making authority ... ¶ ... 7 In a detailed written order, the court granted father's ... motion to modify ... that may initiate a dependency and neglect proceeding with ... respect to a child. See L.A.G. v. People in Interest of ... A.A.G. , 912 P.2d 1385, 1392 (Colo. 1996); see also ... L.G. v. People , 890 P.2d 647, 654 (Colo. 1995) ... (explaining that ... ...
- People in Interest of P. D.
-
People v. Incerto
... ... 142, 389 P.2d 84 (1964), and requested supplemental briefs from the parties. We conclude that § 13--1--114(1)(c), C.R.S.1973, which grants the trial court jurisdiction to enforce its judgment vests the trial court with authority to rule on that motion. See People in the Interest ... ...