CO Code § 19-3-507 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 19 - Children's Code|Article 3 - Dependency and Neglect|Part 5 - Petition, Adjudication, Disposition|§ 19-3-507. Dispositional Hearing

     After making an order of adjudication, the court shall hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition best serving the interests of the child and the public. Such evidence shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the social study and other reports as provided in section 19-1-107.    Prior to any dispositional hearing, the caseworker of the county department assigned to the case shall submit to the court a statement that details the services that were offered to or provided to the family to prevent unnecessary out-of-home placement of the child and to facilitate the reunification of the child with the family. The statement must contain an explanation of the services or actions that, had such services or actions been available, would have been necessary to enable the child to remain at home safely. In the alternative, the caseworker may submit a statement as to why no services or actions would have made it possible for the child to remain at home safely. If the child is part of a sibling group, as defined in section 19-1-103, and the child was not placed with his or her siblings, the caseworker shall submit to the court a statement about whether it continues to be in the best interests of the child or the children in the sibling group to be placed separately. If the caseworker locates an appropriate, capable, willing, and available joint placement for all of the children in the sibling group, it is presumed that placement of the entire sibling group in the joint placement is in the best interests of the children. Such presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence that placement of the entire sibling group in the joint placement is not in the best interests of a child or of the children.    If one or both of the parents have a disability, reasonable accommodations and modifications, as set forth in the federal “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990”, 42 U.S.C. sec. 12101 et seq., and its related amendments and implementing regulations, are necessary to ensure the treatment plan components are accessible. If applicable, any identified accommodations and modifications must be listed in the report prepared for the dispositional hearing.       [ ] If the court has reason to believe that the child may have an intellectual and developmental disability, the court shall refer the child to the community-centered board in the designated service area where the action is pending for an eligibility determination pursuant to article 10.5 of title 27. If the court has reason to believe that the child may have a behavioral or mental health disorder, the court shall order a behavioral or mental health disorder prescreening to be conducted in any appropriate place.      Except as provided in section 19-3-508 (1), the court may continue the dispositional hearing, either on its own motion or on the motion of any interested party, for a reasonable period to receive reports or other evidence.    If the hearing is continued, the court shall make an appropriate order for detention of the child or for such child's release in the custody of such child's parents, guardian, or other responsible person or agency under such conditions of supervision as the court may impose during the continuance.    In scheduling investigations and hearings, the court shall give priority to proceedings concerning a child who is in detention or who has otherwise been removed from such child's home before an order of disposition has been made.       In any case in which the disposition is placement out of the home, except for children committed to the department of human services, the court shall, at the time of placement, set a review within ninety days to determine whether continued placement is necessary and in the best interests of the child and the community and whether reasonable efforts have been made to return the child to the home or in the case of a sibling group whether it is in the best interests of the children in the sibling group to be placed together. If the county department locates an appropriate, capable, willing, and available joint placement for all of the children in the sibling group, it shall be presumed that placement of the entire sibling group in the joint placement is in the best interests of the children. Such presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence that placement of the entire sibling group in the joint placement is not in the best interests of a child or of the children. The judge shall review the family services plan document regarding placement of siblings. Notice of said review shall be given by the court to all parties and to the director of the facility or agency in which the child is placed and any person who has physical custody of the child and any attorney or guardian ad litem of record. The review shall be conducted in accordance with section 19-1-115 (8)(f).      Parents, grandparents, relatives, or foster parents who have the child in their care for more than three months who have information or knowledge concerning the care and protection of the child may intervene as a matter of right following adjudication with or without counsel.    A county department of human or social services that placed a child in foster care shall provide the foster parent of the child and any pre-adoptive parent or relative providing care for the child with notice of any administrative review of the child's case.    Upon the written request of the foster parent, pre-adoptive parent, or relative, notice of a court hearing for the child's case shall be provided in written form and may be provided through the caseworker at the usual periodic meetings with the person providing care for the child. The notice shall include, at a minimum:   The child's court case number;    The date and time of the next court hearing; and    The name of the magistrate or judge and the court division to which the case has been assigned.          Editor's note: This version of subsection (2) is effective until July 1, 2024.  (2) [ ] If the court has reason to believe that the child may have an intellectual and developmental disability, the court shall refer the child to the case management agency, as defined in section 25.5-6-1702 , in the defined service area where the action is pending for an eligibility determination pursuant to article 6 of title 25.5 or article 10.5 of title 27. If the court has reason to believe that the child may have a behavioral or mental health disorder, the court shall order a behavioral or mental health disorder prescreening to be conducted in any appropriate place.  Editor's note: This version of subsection (2) is effective July 1, 2024.  History. Source: L. 87: Entire title R&RE, p. 784, § 1, effective October 1. L. 92: (2) amended, p. 1398, § 58, effective July 1. L. 93: Entire section amended, p. 389, § 3, effective April 19; (1) amended, p. 2017, § 8, effective July 1. L. 94: (1)(b) and (4) amended, p. 2684, § 204, effective July 1. L. 97: (5) added, p. 1439, § 14, effective July 1. L. 99: (4) amended, p. 911, § 6, effective July 1. L. 2000: (1)(b) and (4) amended, p. 476, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2003: (1)(b) and (4) amended, p. 2624, § 5, effective June 5. L. 2004: (5) amended, p. 972, § 1, effective August 4. L. 2006: (2) amended, p. 1404, § 60, effective August 7. L. 2008: (4) amended, p. 1894, § 66, effective August 5. L. 2017: (2) amended,(SB 17-242), ch. 263, p. 1317, § 165, effective May 25. L. 2018: (1)(c) added,(HB 18-1104), ch. 164, p. 1135, § 7, effective April 25; (5)(b) amended,(SB 18-092), ch. 38, p. 422, § 61, effective August 8. L. 2021: (1)(b) amended,(SB 21-059), ch. 136, p. 732, § 79, effective October 1; (2) amended,(HB 21-1187), ch. 83, p. 328, § 12, effective July 1, 2024.    Editor's note:    This section was contained in a title that was repealed and reenacted in 1987. Provisions of this section, as it existed in 1987, are similar to those contained in § 19-3-109 as said section existed in 1986, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this title.    Amendments to this section in House Bill 93-1058 and Senate Bill 93-28 were harmonized.     Cross references:   For the legislative declaration contained in the 1999 act amending subsection (4), see section 1 of chapter 233, Session Laws of Colorado 1999. For the legislative declaration in SB 17-242, see section 1 of chapter 263, Session Laws of Colorado 2017. For the legislative declaration in SB 18-092, see section 1 of chapter 38, Session Laws of Colorado 2018.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Interested Parties in Juvenile Dependency and Neglect Cases”, see 33 Colo. Law. 109 (Aug. 2004).   Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.   Dispositional and adjudicatory hearings may be combined. The clear meaning and import of the hearing provisions provide in proper cases that the adjudicatory hearing and the dispositional hearing may be separate hearings, but that also, in a proper case, providing prior notice thereof is given, the dispositional hearing may be had coextensively with the adjudicatory hearing. When the latter alternative is followed, it is necessary that there be presented at the hearing evidence relating to factors which the court must consider before it can make a proper disposition. Johnson v. People in Interest of W__ J__, 170 Colo. 137 , 459 P.2d 579 (1969).   The Colorado Children's Code provides for either a combined or bifurcated adjudicatory-dispositional procedure. People in Interest of M.B., 188 Colo. 370 , 535 P.2d 192 (1975).   It is not sufficient for a court to substantially comply with the procedural requirements of the section. It must conduct an actual dispositional hearing concerning an appropriate treatment plan. People in Interest of B.C., 2018 COA 45 , 418 P.3d 538.   A trial court may not enter a dispositional order without having first entered an order adjudicating the child dependent or neglected. People ex rel. J.L., 121 P.3d 315 (Colo. App. 2005).   Duty of court. Having determined that the child is dependent and neglected, the court has the duty in a dispositional hearing to formulate a remedy which will secure for each child such care and guidance, preferably in his own home, as will best serve his welfare and the interests of society. People in Interest of K.S., 33 Colo. App. 72, 515 P.2d 130 (1973).   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. City & County of Denver v. Juvenile Court, 182 Colo. 157 , 511 P.2d 898 (1973).   Interests of child primary issue. The primary and controlling issue in child custody cases is the determination of what will serve the best interests of the child. It applies with greater reason and was clearly meant to apply in proceedings where a child has been declared dependent and neglected. Johnson v. People in Interest of W__ J__, 170 Colo. 137 , 459 P.2d 579 (1969).   The Colorado Children's Code does not supply definition of “interested party”. In re People in Interest of C.P., 34 Colo. App. 54, 524 P.2d 316 (1974).   But contemplates their participation. While the Colorado Children's Code does not expressly define those persons who may become “parties” to proceedings, it does contemplate the participation of interested third parties. In re People in Interest of C.P., 34 Colo. App. 54, 524 P.2d 316 (1974).   The Children's Code expressly contemplates the active participation of “interested parties” at the dispositional hearing. The code does not, however, delineate who is entitled to participate as an interested party. People in Interest of M.D.C.M., 34 Colo. App. 91, 522 P.2d 1234 (1974).   The Children's Code expressly contemplates participation of interested parties in juvenile cases. People in Interest of R.J.G., 38 Colo. App. 148, 557 P.2d 1214 (1976).   Includes person furnishing child support pursuant to juvenile court order. 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 child in need of supervision proceeding as an interested party for the purpose of recovering the cost of that support. People in Interest of R.J.G., 38 Colo. App. 148, 557 P.2d 1214 (1976).   Those having custodial experience with the child have sufficient interest, knowledge, and concern relative to the child to bring them within the classification of “interested parties” and thus they are entitled, upon application, to intervene as a matter of right in the dispositional hearing. People in Interest of M.D.C.M., 34 Colo. App. 91, 522 P.2d 1234 (1974).   Those who may aid court. Among those who can be considered interested parties are individuals who, because of their relationship with or particular knowledge concerning the child, can materially aid the court in its determination of what in fact is in the child's best interest. People in Interest of M.D.C.M., 34 Colo. App. 91, 522 P.2d 1234 (1974).   Intervenor in dependency and neglect proceeding only entitled to full participation when the child is not in the parent's custody. Foster parent intervenor could testify regarding the best interests of the child only since the child had returned to the custody of the mother before the hearing. People ex rel. A.W.R., 17 P.3d 192 (Colo. App. 2000).   Foster parents who meet the required statutory criteria to intervene may participate fully in the termination hearing without limitation. A.M. v. A.C., 2013 CO 16M, 296 P.3d 1026.   Foster parents are statutorily permitted to intervene in dependency and neglect proceedings to provide information about the child; however, the foster parents do not have an interest, as a matter of law, in the outcome of a termination of parental rights proceeding. It is further not necessary to allow foster parents to represent the best interests of the child in an appeal proceeding because the appointed guardian ad litem is expressly authorized by the Colorado Children's Code to fulfill that role. Further, in an appeal proceeding concerning the termination of parental rights, the foster parents lack standing because they have not suffered an injury in fact because the adoption they hope for is, at the time of the appeal, merely speculative. C.W.B., Jr. v. A.S., 2018 CO 8, 410 P.3d 438 .   Parents' due process rights are not impacted by the full participation of foster parents in a termination hearing. A.M. v. A.C., 2013 CO 16M, 296 P.3d 1026.   Foster parent does not have constitutionally protected liberty interest in continued relationship with child. Unlike the natural family, foster parents derive their rights from statute and the contractual relationship with the state. People ex rel. A.C., 304 P.3d 589 (Colo. App. 2011), aff'd sub nom. M.S. v. People, 2013 CO 35, 303 P.3d 102.   Grandmother's standing as interested party. While grandmother, who petitioned for custody of children who had been adjudicated dependent and neglected, but who had failed to enter the proceeding in which the adjudication had been made, had no “right” to custody, she had standing as an “interested party” to challenge the court's order granting temporary custody to the county welfare department for the purpose of placing the children for adoption. In re People in Interest of C.P., 34 Colo. App. 54, 524 P.2d 316 (1974).   Grandmother as petitioner seeking custody. Although joinder of grandmother as a “respondent” in dispositional stage would be inappropriate since such proceedings do not purport to affect any existing legal relationship between her and the children, this, however, does not preclude her from becoming a “party” to such proceedings as a petitioner seeking custody. In re People in Interest of C.P., 34 Colo. App. 54, 524 P.2d 316 (1974).   Procedural rights. Grandmother's right of participation seeking custody at dispositional stage included the right to be informed by the court of her right of cross-examination, to put on evidence in her own behalf in asserting her fitness for custody, and to receive notice of any subsequent hearings. In re People in Interest of C.P., 34 Colo. App. 54, 524 P.2d 316 (1974).   Relative who does not make application. Court in the dispositional stage need not give notice to, nor consider the rights of, relatives who are seeking custody of children adjudicated neglected or dependent, if such relatives have not made timely application. In re People in Interest of C.P., 34 Colo. App. 54, 524 P.2d 316 (1974).   In order to terminate parental rights (now parent-child legal relationship), the trial court must find that the condition which results in the determination that the child is dependent and neglected will in all probability continue into the future and the court must further find that under no reasonable circumstances can the welfare of the child be served by a continuation of the parent-child relationship. People in Interest of M.B., 188 Colo. 370 , 535 P.2d 192 (1975).   Court's failure to conduct a dispositional hearing and approve a new treatment plan after children were adjudicated dependent or neglected did not prejudice mother's ability to preserve her parental rights when court conducted proceeding in substantial compliance with the statutory requirements for termination. People ex rel. T.E.H., 168 P.3d 5 (Colo. App. 2007).   A court may hold a dispositional hearing and find that no appropriate treatment plan can be devised for a parent after it has already approved an initial treatment plan for the parent at a prior hearing. The purposes of the Children's Code -- to preserve and strengthen family ties and protect the best interests of the child -- require courts to have the flexibility to modify or adopt new dispositional orders. People in Interest of Z.P.S., 2016 COA 20 , 369 P.3d 814.   A court may rely on evidence that was previously considered, or could have been presented, at a prior hearing when it modifies its orders at a subsequent hearing to hold that an appropriate treatment plan cannot be devised. People in Interest of Z.P.S., 2016 COA 20 , 369 P.3d 814.   Counsel for children required in petition to terminate parental rights (now parent-child legal relationship). Where the object of an amended petition was to terminate parental rights, it was plain error to proceed to a dispositional hearing in the absence of counsel for the children. People in Interest of M.B., 188 Colo. 370 , 535 P.2d 192 (1975).   Juvenile court may delegate responsibility for placement of child. City & County of Denver v. Juvenile Court, 182 Colo. 157 , 511 P.2d 898 (1973).   C.R.C.P. 24 has no application in proceeding under the Colorado Children's Code, as the code itself expressly contemplates the active participation of interested parties. People in Interest of M.D.C.M., 34 Colo. App. 91, 522 P.2d 1234 (1974).   Admission of study with cross-examination satisfies due process. Where parents obtained attendance of authors of social reports admitted in proceeding to adjudge child to be dependent and neglected and to terminate parental rights, and where parents cross-examined each author, admission of such reports did not deny due process to parents. In re People in Interest of A.R.S., 31 Colo. App. 268, 502 P.2d 92 (1972).   Common-law hearsay objections as to admissibility of social study are not applicable. In re People in Interest of A.R.S., 31 Colo. App. 268, 502 P.2d 92 (1972).   Where this section authorizes consideration of social reports, fact that they may contain hearsay or are prepared by non-experts becomes matter concerning their weight and probative value and not their admissibility. In re People in Interest of A.R.S., 31 Colo. App. 268, 502 P.2d 92 (1972).   Waiver of jurisdiction is not final disposition of action. It is evident from the provisions of this section and §§ 19-3-108(4) and 19-3-106 that an order of the juvenile division of the district court waiving jurisdiction is not a final disposition of the action. People in Interest of D.H., 37 Colo. App. 544, 552 P.2d 29 (1976), aff'd, 192 Colo. 542 , 561 P.2d 5 (1977).   Grandparents have right to intervene in a dependency and neglect proceeding under C.R.C.P. 24(a). Denial of grandparents' motion to intervene is a final appealable order because grandparents may intervene as a matter of right under § 19-3-507 (5)(a) . People ex rel. O.C., 2012 COA 161 , 312 P.3d 226, aff'd, 2013 CO 56, 308 P.3d 1218.   Parents, grandparents, or other relatives may intervene in a dependency and neglect proceeding as a matter of right at any time after adjudication. That right is not contingent upon having had the child in their care for more than three months. Only foster parents are required to provide care to the child for three months before being permitted to intervene. People ex rel. O.C., 2012 COA 161 , 312 P.3d 226, aff'd, 2013 CO 56, 308 P.3d 1218.   Applied in Overturf v. District Court, 198 Colo. 516 , 602 P.2d 850 (1979); People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1982).