CO Code § 19-1-106 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 19 - Children's Code|Article 1 - General Provisions|Part 1 - General Provisions|§ 19-1-106. Hearings - Procedure - Record

  The Colorado rules of juvenile procedure shall apply in all proceedings under this title.    Hearings may be conducted in an informal manner. The general public shall not be excluded unless the court determines that it is in the best interest of the child or of the community to exclude the general public, and, in such event, the court shall admit only such persons as have an interest in the case or the work of the court, including persons whom the district attorney, the county or city attorney, the child, or the parents, guardian, or other custodian of the child wish to be present.    A verbatim record shall be taken of all proceedings.    When more than one child is named in a petition alleging neglect or dependency, the hearings may be consolidated; except that separate hearings may be held with respect to disposition.    Children's cases shall be heard separately from adults' cases, and the child or his parents, guardian, or other custodian may be heard separately when deemed necessary by the court.     History. Source: L. 87: Entire title R&RE, p. 700, § 1, effective October 1.    Editor's note:   This section was contained in a title that was repealed and reenacted in 1987.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 19-1-107 as said section existed in 1986, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this title.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings: The Due Process Model”, see 40 U. Colo. L. Rev. 315 (1968).   Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.   Juvenile proceedings are governed by the procedural rules contained in the Colorado Children's Code. People ex rel. M.C.L., 671 P.2d 1339 (Colo. App. 1983).   Hearing may be informally conducted, and the court may take into consideration all factors which he normally takes into account when sentencing. People in Interest of B.L.M. v. B.L.M., 31 Colo. App. 106, 500 P.2d 146 (1972).   And court is not bound by strict rules of evidence in a hearing to determine whether probation should be revoked. People in Interest of B.L.M. v. B.L.M., 31 Colo. App. 106, 500 P.2d 146 (1972).   Thus, there is a presumption that all incompetent or hearsay evidence is disregarded by a court in reaching its conclusions, so a judgment will not be reversed on appeal because of the admission of such evidence. People in Interest of B.L.M. v. B.L.M., 31 Colo. App. 106, 500 P.2d 146 (1972).   However, the Colorado Children's Code does not dispense with rules of evidence which directly bear upon substantive proof although the Children's Code does permit hearings to be conducted in an informal manner. Daugaard v. People in Interest of Daugaard, 176 Colo. 38 , 488 P.2d 1101 (1971).   Arguments to the court are not matters of evidence, have no probative value, and are designed only to sway the court's findings and conclusions. People in Interest of B.L.M. v. B.L.M., 31 Colo. App. 106, 500 P.2d 146 (1972).   In delinquency cases a verbatim record of the proceedings and evidence shall be maintained unless expressly waived. John Doe v. People, 156 Colo. 311 , 398 P.2d 624 (1965).   Lack of transcript and evidence required reversal. Where an order was entered declaring a child neglected and dependent, severing parental rights, and holding the child's grandfather in contempt of court for failure to deliver the child, but the court reporter certified that there had been no transcript made of any of the hearings prior to the one on the contempt violation, and since there was no evidence or showing that the home environment which the grandfather might provide for the child would be unsatisfactory the judgment and orders of the trial court were reversed. C.B. v. People in Interest of J.T.B., 30 Colo. App. 269, 493 P.2d 691 (1971).   The prosecutor may establish the same facts by the same witnesses and by the same real and documentary evidence that may have been used in earlier proceeding in the juvenile court. When oral testimony is offered for its intrinsic value with relation to the issue to be tried, rather than to establish what was said or done in proceedings before the juvenile court, former § 19-1-109 (2) does not prevent the giving of testimony because the same witness was previously called upon to give evidence relating to the same transaction in juvenile court proceedings. Gallegos v. People, 145 Colo. 53 , 358 P.2d 1028 (1960), rev'd on other grounds, 370 U.S. 49, 82 S. Ct. 1209, 8 L. Ed. 2d 325, reh'g denied, 370 U.S. 965, 82 S. Ct. 1579, 8 L. Ed. 2d 835 (1962).   Defendant's constitutional right to confrontation and cross-examination paramount to juvenile's interests. Where both juveniles admittedly participated in the crimes which were charged against the defendant, both juveniles were seeking leniency and had already obtained the dismissal of serious felony counts which would have mandated imprisonment, the dispositional hearing was purposely set for a time subsequent to the defendant's trial, and no testimony tied the defendant to the crime other than that of the juvenile witnesses, the defendant's constitutional right to confrontation and cross-examination was paramount to the interests afforded a juvenile under former § 19-1-109 (2) . People v. Pate, 625 P.2d 369 (Colo. 1981).   Court may conduct in camera interview with a child to determine child's best interests and how to allocate parental responsibilities within a dependency and neglect proceeding. Unless waived by the parties, a record of the interview must be made. The record must be made available to parents, upon request, in situations in which a parent needs (1) to determine whether the court's findings, insofar as they relied on facts from the interview, are supported by the record, or (2) an opportunity to contest information supplied by the child during the interview and relied on by the court. People in Interest of H.K.W., 2017 COA 70 , 417 P.3d 875.   Appellate court may vacate a juvenile court's decision in a dependency and neglect proceeding on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel without remanding for further fact-finding when either (1) the record is sufficiently developed to allow the appellate court to decide the question of counsel's ineffectiveness or (2) the record establishes presumptive prejudice under the standard set forth in United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984). People in Interest of A.R., 2020 CO 10, 456 P.3d 1266; People in Interest of A.L.W, 2020 CO 11, 456 P.3d 1284.   Applied in Lindsey v. People ex rel. Rush, 66 Colo. 343 , 181 P. 531 (1919); People v. Hinchman, 196 Colo. 526 , 589 P.2d 917 (1978); People v. Dist. Court, 199 Colo. 197 , 606 P.2d 450 (1980); People v. Thorpe, 641 P.2d 935 (Colo. 1982); People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1982).