CO Code § 19-3-203 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 19 - Children's Code|Article 3 - Dependency and Neglect|Part 2 - General Provisions|§ 19-3-203. Guardian Ad Litem

  Upon the filing of a petition under section 19-3-502 that alleges abuse or neglect of a minor child, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem, who shall be an attorney-at-law licensed to practice in Colorado. Nothing in this section shall limit the power of the court to appoint a guardian ad litem prior to the filing of a petition for good cause.    The guardian ad litem shall be provided with all reports relevant to a case submitted to or made by any agency or person pursuant to this article, including reports of examination of the child or persons responsible for the neglect or dependency of the child. The county department shall share with the guardian ad litem the reports of fingerprint-based criminal history record checks from the Colorado bureau of investigation and from the federal bureau of investigation if the court orders the county department to share that information with the guardian ad litem. The court and social workers assigned to the case shall keep the guardian ad litem apprised of significant developments in the case, particularly prior to further neglect or dependency court appearances.    The guardian ad litem shall be charged in general with the representation of the child's interests. To that end, the guardian ad litem shall make such further investigations as the guardian ad litem deems necessary to ascertain the facts and shall talk with or observe the child involved, examine and cross-examine witnesses in both the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings, introduce and examine the guardian ad litem's own witnesses, make recommendations to the court concerning the child's welfare, appeal matters to the court of appeals or the supreme court, and participate further in the proceedings to the degree necessary to adequately represent the child. In addition, the guardian ad litem, if in the best interest of the child, shall seek to assure that reasonable efforts are being made to prevent unnecessary placement of the child out of the home and to facilitate reunification of the child with the child's family or, if reunification is not possible, to find another safe and permanent living arrangement for the child. In determining whether said reasonable efforts are made with respect to a child, and in making such reasonable efforts, the child's health and safety shall be the paramount concern.    A guardian ad litem already appointed to represent a youth's best interests pursuant to this article 3 shall begin acting as counsel and providing client-directed representation immediately upon the youth's eighteenth birthday and shall act in this role until either the case is dismissed or new counsel is appointed, unless the youth is deemed incapacitated pursuant to section 19-3-704, in which case the guardian ad litem shall remain in that role and separate counsel for the youth shall be appointed.    At the first hearing following a youth's eighteenth birthday, the court shall advise each youth who has a current guardian ad litem appointed pursuant to this section of the youth's right to counsel and the option to either consent to have the same person continue as counsel, if the lawyer remains available and has no conflict of interest, or to have a new person appointed as counsel. If the youth elects to have a new person appointed as counsel, the court shall appoint an attorney from the list of attorneys approved by the office of the child's representative.     History. Source: L. 87: Entire title R&RE, p. 761, § 1, effective October 1. L. 92: (1) amended, p. 224, § 9, effective July 1. L. 93: (3) amended, p. 2013, § 3, effective July 1. L. 98: (3) amended, p. 1417, § 3, effective July 1. L. 2001: (3) amended, p. 846, § 7, effective June 1. L. 2015: (1) and (2) amended,(SB 15-087), ch. 263, p. 1012, § 8, effective June 2. L. 2021: (4) and (5) added,(HB 21-1094), ch. 340, p. 2215, § 4, effective June 25.    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 19-3-105 and 19-10-113 as said sections existed in 1986, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this title.   Cross references:   For the legislative declaration contained in the 2001 act amending subsection (3), see section 1 of chapter 241, Session Laws of Colorado 2001.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “The Role of Parents' Counsel in Dependency and Neglect Proceedings -- Part I”, see 14 Colo. Law. 568 (1985). For article, “The Role of Children's Counsel in Contested Child Custody, Visitation and Support Cases”, see 15 Colo. Law. 224 (1986). For Supreme Court directive, see “Colorado Supreme Court Issues a Directive on GALs in Cases Under CRS Title 19”, 25 Colo. Law. 17 (March 1996). For article, “The Role of Guardian ad Litem: Changes in the Wind”, see 27 Colo. Law. 73 (Nov. 1998). For article, “Ethical Issues for Guardians ad Litem Representing Children in Dependency and Neglect Cases”, see 31 Colo. Law. 43 (Oct. 2002). For article, “Report-Writing Tips for Guardians ad Litem in Dependency and Neglect Cases”, see 31 Colo. Law. 87 (Oct. 2002). For casenote, “A Colorado Child's Best Interests: Examining the Gabriesheski Decision and Future Policy Implications”, see 85 U. Colo. L. Rev. 537 (2014).   Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.   The state is the exclusive party to file a petition in dependency and neglect and a guardian ad litem has no authority to assume the role of the state. People in Interest of R.E., 729 P.2d 1032 (Colo. App. 1986).   However, the trial court is not required to dismiss a dependency and neglect petition merely because the state chooses, for any reason, not to pursue the proceedings. People in Interest of R.E., 729 P.2d 1032 (Colo. App. 1986).   Dependency and neglect petition may not be dismissed over the objection of the guardian ad litem. People in Interest of R.E., 729 P.2d 1032 (Colo. App. 1986).   If there is such an objection, the trial court must conduct a hearing and specifically determine whether the petition is supported by a preponderance of the evidence and the child is in fact dependent and neglected. That determination may be appealed by the guardian ad litem. People in Interest of R.E., 729 P.2d 1032 (Colo. App. 1986).   This section makes it clear that the performance of the guardian ad litem's duties is intended primarily to benefit the child. People ex rel. D.L.C., 70 P.3d 584 (Colo. App. 2003).   Violation of the guardian ad litem's duties does not interfere with a parent's rights. People ex rel. D.L.C., 70 P.3d 584 (Colo. App. 2003).   Quasi-judicial immunity. A court appointed guardian ad litem in service of the public interest in the welfare of children is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. Short by Ossterhous v. Short, 730 F. Supp. 1307 (D. Colo. 1990 ).   Guardian ad litem is not required to make a recommendation in a hearing regarding the termination of parental rights. People in Interest of M.W., 796 P.2d 66 (Colo. App. 1990).   Determination of whether a guardian ad litem may be examined and cross-examined depends on the manner in which the guardian chooses to proceed in fulfilling the statutory requirements of the position. If a guardian presents a recommendation based on an independent investigation, the facts of which have not otherwise been introduced into evidence, the guardian functions as a witness in the proceedings and, thus, should be subject to examination and cross-examination as to the bases for the opinion and recommendation. If the guardian's recommendations are based upon the evidence received by the court from other sources, then they are analogous to arguments made by counsel and examination and cross-examination should not be permitted. Therefore, the trial court did not err in limiting a mother's examination of her children's guardian ad litem during the hearing on terminating the parent-child legal relationship where the record demonstrated that the guardian had chosen to examine the witnesses called by others and to present his recommendations in the form of legal argument based upon the facts and opinions testified to by others. People in Interest of J.E.B., 854 P.2d 1372 (Colo. App. 1993).   Grandparent who was allowed to intervene in dependency and neglect case was not entitled to be treated as the child's representative. When the state, the guardian ad litem, and the father agreed to dismiss the petition over grandmother's objection, the court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing before granting the dismissal. People in Interest of G.S., 820 P.2d 1178 (Colo. App. 1991).   Evaluation of mother's relationship with her children not privileged under attorney-client privilege since mother requested court to appoint the psychologist. Subsection (2) requires the psychologist's reports be disclosed to the children and the children's guardian and prevented the privilege from attaching. People in Interest of O.J.S., 844 P.2d 1230 (Colo. App. 1992).