CO Code § 19-1-109 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 19 - Children's Code|Article 1 - General Provisions|Part 1 - General Provisions|§ 19-1-109. Appeals

  An appeal as provided in the introductory portion to section 13-4-102 (1), C.R.S., may be taken from any order, decree, or judgment. Appellate procedure shall be as provided by the Colorado appellate rules. Initials shall appear on the record on appeal in place of the name of the child and respondents. Appeals shall be advanced on the calendar of the appellate court and shall be decided at the earliest practical time.      The people of the state of Colorado shall have the same right to appeal questions of law in delinquency cases as exists in criminal cases.    An order terminating or refusing to terminate the legal relationship between a parent or parents and one or more of the children of such parent or parents on a petition, or between a child and one or both parents of the child, shall be a final and appealable order.    An order decreeing a child to be neglected or dependent shall be a final and appealable order after the entry of the disposition pursuant to section 19-3-508. Any appeal shall not affect the jurisdiction of the trial court to enter such further dispositional orders as the court believes to be in the best interests of the child.       A workgroup to consider necessary changes to practices, rules, and statutes in order to ensure that appeals in cases concerning relinquishment, adoption, and dependency and neglect be resolved within six months after being filed shall be established. The workgroup shall be known as the child welfare appeals workgroup and shall be created in the state judicial department.      History. Source: L. 87: Entire title R&RE, p. 702, § 1, effective October 1. L. 97: (2) amended and (3) added, p. 1433, § 7, effective July 1. L. 2000: (3) amended, p. 1546, § 3, effective August 2.    Editor's note:   This section was contained in a title that was repealed and reenacted in 1987.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 19-1-112 as said section existed in 1986, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this title.   ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.   Judgments in dependency proceedings may be reviewed by the supreme court as in appeal proceedings. Selk v. Ramsey, 110 Colo. 223 , 132 P.2d 454 (1942).   Juvenile delinquency cases may be appealed to the supreme court after trial. People in Interest of P.L.V. v. P.L.V., 172 Colo. 269 , 472 P.2d 127 (1970).   But an interlocutory appeal is not available to either the state or the respondent in a delinquency proceeding under the Colorado Children's Code. People in Interest of P.L.V. v. P.L.V., 172 Colo. 269 , 472 P.2d 127 (1970).   Neither the state nor the respondent can prosecute interlocutory appeals in delinquency proceedings. People in Interest of G.D.K. v. G.D.K., 30 Colo. App. 54, 491 P.2d 81 (1971).   And C.A.R. 4.1 does not apply. C.A.R. 4.1 cannot be stretched to permit an interlocutory appeal in a delinquency proceeding without doing violence to the distinction carefully drawn by the supreme court between a criminal proceeding and a proceeding in delinquency. People in Interest of P.L.V. v. P.L.V., 172 Colo. 269 , 472 P.2d 127 (1970).   C.A.R. 4.1, which authorizes certain interlocutory appeals in criminal cases, has no application to delinquency proceedings. People in Interest of G.D.K. v. G.D.K., 30 Colo. App. 54, 491 P.2d 81 (1971).   Statute does not describe the order or judgment terminating the parent-child legal relationship as interlocutory, therefore, intent of the general assembly is to require immediate appeal of any order terminating parental rights. People ex rel. A.E., 994 P.2d 465 (Colo. App. 1999).   Application of C.A.R. 1(a)(1). Delinquency proceedings are no less subject to the finality requirements of C.A.R. 1(a)(1) than any other type of proceeding. 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).   Issue of notice and pleading in juvenile proceeding of constitutional proportions. Even if an allegation in a mother's motion for a new trial after the termination of her parental rights in her child was inadequate to raise the issue of adequacy of notice and pleading in a juvenile proceeding, it is of constitutional proportions, and the court of appeals is obliged to address the issue on its merits. People in Interest of Baby Girl D., 44 Colo. App. 192, 610 P.2d 1086 (1980).   Majority renders minor's appeal moot. Attainment of majority while minor's appeal from adjudication as child in need of supervision is pending renders the appeal moot in light of the Colorado Children's Code attempt to eliminate collateral legal consequences of adjudication. People v. T.B., 183 Colo. 310 , 516 P.2d 642 (1973).   An order denying termination of the parent-child legal relationship does not “completely determine the rights of the parties involved” and is interlocutory in nature; therefore, such an order is not final and appealable. People in the interest of D.B., 855 P.2d 27 (Colo. App. 1993) (decided under law in effect prior to the 1997 amendment).   An order terminating a parent-child legal relationship is final and appealable thereby furnishing the right of immediate appeal to a parent, even when order relates to only one parent. People ex rel. A.E., 994 P.2d 465 (Colo. App. 1999).   Juvenile court's order denying a tribe's request to transfer jurisdiction to a tribal court is a final, appealable order based on the collateral order doctrine. People in Interest of L.R.B., 2019 COA 85 , __ P.3d __ (decided prior to 2019 amendment to § 19-1-126 ).   The juvenile court's finding that a juvenile cannot be restored to competency is a final appealable order. People ex rel. C.Y., 2012 COA 31 , 275 P.3d 762.   A party has a right to appeal both the adjudicatory order and the initial disposition order. An initial dispositional order, by itself, however, is not a final, appealable order. People in Interest of H.T., 2019 COA 72 , __ P.3d __.   Fact finder's “no adjudication” finding with respect to one party is not a proper basis for a motion notwithstanding the verdict and not a final appealable order under C.A.R. 3.4(a) or subsection (2)(c) of this section. Statute provides that an order decreeing a child neglected or dependent is a final and appealable order. Father's dismissal from the petition based on a jury verdict that the child was not dependent and neglected with respect to him is not subject to direct appeal under C.A.R. 3.4. People in Interest of S.M-L, 2016 COA 173 , 459 P.3d 572, aff'd sub nom. People in Interest of R.S., 2018 CO 31, 416 P.3d 905.   C.A.R. 2 permits an appellate court to expedite decisions and order proceedings in accordance with its direction even though C.A.R. 3.4 does not extend to permanent custody orders entered in dependency or neglect proceedings. People ex rel. K.A., 155 P.3d 558 (Colo. App. 2006).   Application of C.A.R. 3.4(b). Based on the “unique circumstances exception”, court of appeals has the authority to extend the deadline for filing the notice of appeal in a dependency and neglect case. The “no extensions” provision in C.A.R. 3.4(b) does not preclude application of the unique circumstances exception, because it is an exception to procedural rules limiting a court's authority to grant exceptions. Here, the trial court must bear some responsibility for the late filing because of an ambiguous ruling and subsequent written orders. People ex rel. A.J.H., 134 P.3d 528 (Colo. App. 2006).   Mother cannot wait until appeal of termination order to challenge counsel's performance at the earlier adjudicatory proceeding. Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at adjudicatory hearing was untimely because mother was or should have been aware of facts giving rise to claim at or shortly after adjudicatory hearing, but made no effort to file a timely appeal from adjudication order, nor could mother allege any factual or legal impediments to pursuing a timely appeal. People in Interest of A.R., 2020 CO 10, 456 P.3d 1266.   Subsection (2)(c) is not meant to delay permanent placement decisions while appeals of dependency and neglect orders are litigated. Subsection (2)(c) provides the trial court with continuing jurisdiction to enter further permanent custody orders under § 19-3-702 if it furthers the child's best interests, even if those orders are entered after the order adjudicating the child dependent or neglected is appealed. People ex rel. K.A., 155 P.3d 558 (Colo. App. 2006).   Party may appeal adjudicatory order after entry of disposition, even though magistrate's dispositional order has not been appealed. Under the plain language of subsection (2)(c), an adjudicatory order is final and appealable upon entry of the disposition. The parties did not appeal the dispositional order, and appeal of the magistrate's dispositional order to the district court is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to appealing the adjudicatory order to the court of appeals or the supreme court. People in Interest of R.J., 2019 COA 109 , 451 P.3d 1232.   Matter is moot where guardian ad litem (GAL) failed to offer facts in supplemental brief demonstrating a current basis to terminate mother's parental rights. Although the GAL argued on appeal that the court improperly failed to terminate mother's rights, the child has been returned to the mother and all parties believed that the child should remain in the mother's custody. A matter is moot when the relief sought, if granted, would have no practical legal effect on the existing controversy. People ex rel. L.O.L., 197 P.3d 291 (Colo. App. 2008).   Appellate court may review an otherwise moot issue, however, when it is capable of repetition and yet will evade review. The issue of whether the trial court rendered its decision using the wrong burden of proof is an issue that is capable of repetition and yet may evade review and thus may be addressed on its merits. People ex rel. L.O.L., 197 P.3d 291 (Colo. App. 2008).   Applied in People in Interest of R.R., 43 Colo. App. 208, 607 P.2d 1013 (1979).