Opinion ID: 2633688
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Probate Court's Proper Exercise of Jurisdiction

Text: Subject matter jurisdiction is a court's power to resolve a dispute in which it renders judgment. Trans Shuttle, Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 58 P.3d 47, 49-50 (Colo. 2002) (citing In re Marriage of Stroud, 631 P.2d 168, 170 (Colo.1981)). The issue of jurisdiction is a legal question that we review de novo. Swieckowski v. City of Fort Collins, 934 P.2d 1380, 1384 (Colo.1997). In doing so, we consider both the nature of the claim and the relief sought. Trans Shuttle, 58 P.3d at 50. Under the Colorado Constitution article VI, section 9(3) and section 13-9-103(1)(f), C.R.S. (2007), the Denver probate court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the administration of guardianships of minors. Moreover, the court has full power to make orders, judgments, and decrees and take all other action necessary and proper to administer justice in the matters which come before it. § 15-10-302, C.R.S. (2007). In this case, the court of appeals acknowledged the jurisdiction of the probate court over issues of J.C.T.'s guardianship. However, the court ruled that the probate court, exceeded its jurisdiction when it instructed the GAL in August 2004 to find a permanent guardian for J.C.T., and considered the potential for an eventual adoption in evaluating the best interests of J.C.T. The court of appeals reasoned that these actions amounted to a de facto adoption proceeding, an area within the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court. [3] The Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that the probate court was merely exercising its jurisdiction over a guardianship matter. The essential question before us, therefore, is whether the probate court was conducting a de facto adoption proceeding. We find that it was not. The Colorado Children's Code states that proceedings for the adoption of a person of any age fall within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the juvenile court. § 19-1-104(1)(g), C.R.S. (2007). In addition, the Code notes that nothing in its jurisdictional provisions deprives the district court of the authority to appoint a guardian for a child. § 19-1-104(4). A district court is only required to certify a question of legal custody to the juvenile court if a petition involving the same child is pending in juvenile court or if continuing jurisdiction has been previously acquired by the juvenile court. § 19-1-104(4)(a). That circumstance does not apply here. Moreover, a district court may request that the juvenile court make recommendations regarding guardianship or legal custody at any time, but such requests do not require the district court to certify the case to the juvenile court unless the situation described above exists. See § 19-1-104(4)(b). Contrary to the court of appeals' holding, an adoption does not occur simply because a court plans for permanency or considers a child's future when exercising its proper jurisdiction. In ruling that the probate court's exclusive focus, as well as that of the GAL, was on the adoption of J.C.T., the court of appeals emphasized the GAL's extensive contacts with various adoption agencies for the purpose of finding J.C.T. a permanent home. In addition, the court highlighted the probate court's discussion of the potential adoptive family at the March 2005 hearing. Indeed, it is true that the probate court wanted to avoid placing J.C.T. in another stranger's home for some temporary time period, and thus strived to find a family that could provide some stability for J.C.T. in the long term. This does not, however, constitute an adoption. Section 19-5-203, C.R.S. (2007), provides that a child is not available for adoption unless a parent or guardian gives his or her consent, a court receives an affidavit or sworn testimony that the child has been abandoned for one year or more, or a court enters an order terminating the parent-child legal relationship. No termination of parental rights proceeding has ever occurred in this case. No one has averred in the case of a kinship or custodian adoption that J.C.T. has been abandoned for one year or more. Although J.C.T.'s father has not participated in these proceedings and J.C.T.'s mother long ago ceased her participation, neither has consented to adoption. J.C.T. is not available for adoption under section 19-5-203. Mere instructions to find a permanent home for J.C.T. cannot suddenly render him available and thus, initiate adoption proceedings. Generally, probate courts establish guardianships for the purpose of protecting and caring for those in society who cannot fend for themselves, such as minors and incapacitated persons. See Peter Mosanyi, Comment, A Survey of State Guardianship Statutes: One Concept, Many Applications, 18 J. Am. Acad. Matrimonial Law. 253, 255 (2002) (discussing guardianship in the national context). In his or her court-appointed role, a guardian is responsible for the ward's physical well-being, including the provision of shelter, food, clothing, medical care or other necessities of life. Id. The guardian has essentially the same authority and responsibilities with regard to the child as a parent would have, with the exceptions that the guardian typically does not provide the financial resources to support the child and serves solely at the pleasure of the appointing court. See id.; see also § 15-14-208(1), C.R.S. (2007) ([A] guardian of a minor ward has the powers of a parent regarding the ward's support, care, education, health, and welfare.). In Colorado, the probate court may appoint a guardian for a minor if the court finds the appointment is in the minor's best interest,  and 1) the parents have consented; 2) parental rights have previously been terminated; 3) the parents are incapable or unwilling to exercise their parental rights; or 4) a previously appointed third-party guardian has subsequently died or become incapacitated and did not provide for a successor by will or written instrument. See § 15-14-204(2), C.R.S. (2007) (emphasis added). Moreover, section 15-14-112(3), C.R.S. (2007), allows the court to appoint successor guardians in the event of a vacancy. Ultimately, the probate court is granted broad discretion in all cases involving protected persons. O.R.L. v. Smith, 996 P.2d 788, 790-91 (Colo.App. 2000) (citing Sweeney v. Summers, 194 Colo. 149, 155, 571 P.2d 1067, 1070 (1977)). Initially, in this case, Guardian 1 was appointed guardian of J.C.T. upon his mother's consent. Since that time, J.C.T.'s parents have not exercised their parental rights, and the probate court has appointed subsequent guardians in furtherance of J.C.T.'s best interest. Considering J.C.T.'s mental health and utmost well-being, the probate court suspended Guardian 1's guardianship and appointed Guardian 2 as temporary guardian. Later, when Guardian 2 was no longer capable of properly caring for J.C.T., the court appointed Guardian 3 as a substitute guardian. The court made that appointment believing Guardian 3 to be a neutral individual who would protect J.C.T. from unnecessary conflict among the parties. When this failed to be the case, the probate court again looked to J.C.T.'s best interest. Wishing to avoid any greater disruption to J.C.T. that could be caused by placing him with another stranger, the court made J.C.T. its ward and appointed the GAL, who had been part of J.C.T.'s life since he was only one year old, as his guardian designee. In each of these instances, the court was acting pursuant to its authority under sections 15-14-204(2) and 15-14-112(3). We find that, by both considering J.C.T.'s current needs and looking toward his future well-being, the probate court was furthering the intent behind the Probate Code's guardianship of minors provisions. For over seven years as of the time of this appeal, the probate court supervised J.C.T.'s care, placing him with three different temporary guardians, as well as with the GAL for a limited period. For children like J.C.T., permanency and stability are unquestionably in their best interest. [4] Over the years, the probate court periodically evaluated the appropriateness of each guardian in light of J.C.T.'s needs. Ultimately, the court recognized that the available parties were no longer able to meet those needs; thus, it instructed the GAL to look elsewhere. In ruling that the probate court exceeded its jurisdiction, the court of appeals found that the prospect of adoption was a significant factor in the court's denial of Guardian 1's petition for permanent guardianship. See In re J.C.T., 155 P.3d at 456. To a certain degree, this is true. The probate court did note J.C.T.'s positive visits with the potential adoptive family. It discussed the family's ability to meet J.C.T.'s needs, and it recognized that the family would be an appropriate placement under the ICWA. [5] Consideration of this potential adoptive family, however, was entirely proper. See In re R.M.S., 128 P.3d 783, 788 (Colo.2006) (A court may consider all relevant facts and circumstances to determine the best interest of the child.). As this court previously explained in L.L. v. People , guardianship orders are merely a plan for permanency that is subject to change as warranted by the best interests of the children. 10 P.3d 1271, 1277 (Colo.2000) (discussing appropriateness of permanent guardianship in juvenile court). Here, the probate court's consideration of the potential future adoption was warranted by the best interests of J.C.T. [6] Moreover, the potential adoption was only one of the many factors the probate court considered in denying Guardian 1's petition. For example, in its April 2005 order, the court noted that J.C.T. exhibited many emotional and psychological problems when initially placed with Guardian 1, issues that were not as evident when J.C.T. was placed with either Guardian 2 or Guardian 3. The court stated that, In no way [could J.C.T.'s] prior placement in [Guardian 1's] home be described as successful. In addition, one of the therapists who evaluated J.C.T. testified in the probate court that J.C.T. would be best served by a placement without younger children in the home, because younger children tend to make J.C.T. feel threatened and cause him to behave aggressively. At the time of her petition, Guardian 1 had three children younger than J.C.T. in her home, as well as one older child, and she operated a day-care center in her home. Further, the probate court specifically recognized the Tribes' opposition to any guardianship placement with Guardian 1. The court concluded that [a]fter careful consideration of [J.C.T.'s] needs, the likelihood that [Guardian 1] cannot meet his needs, and the potential for a successful adoption elsewhere, the Court finds that the balance tips heavily against placement with [Guardian 1] and in favor of placement with the family recommended by the Guardian ad Litem. This best interest evaluation was proper with regard to J.C.T.'s guardianship under section 15-14-204. It does not constitute an adoption, or a de facto adoption. If, in the future, J.C.T.'s guardians should wish to adopt him, they must petition the juvenile court, which possesses the sole authority to conduct adoptions. The General Assembly anticipated adoption by a legal guardian when it drafted section 19-5-203(1)(k), which provides that a child may be available for adoption upon: Submission of an affidavit or sworn testimony of the legal custodian or legal guardian in a custodial adoption that the birth parent or birth parents have abandoned the child for a period of one year or more . . . and that the legal custodian or legal guardian seeking the custodial adoption has had the child in his or her physical custody for a period of one year or more. While it is possible for a guardian to adopt his or her ward, that is not what occurred in this case. In sum, we find that the probate court properly acted within its jurisdiction when it considered J.C.T.'s need for stability and instructed the GAL to find a permanent guardian. In reaching this conclusion, we do not intend to minimize the importance of the juvenile court and its expertise in matters regarding children. The expertise of the juvenile court, however, does not pose a jurisdictional defect in terms of the probate court's authority over J.C.T.'s guardianship. Focusing our review of jurisdiction on the nature of the claim and the relief sought, we conclude that the relief sought here was that of a permanent guardianship, and we hold that the court of appeals erred in equating the probate court's actions with a de facto adoption. Despite the court of appeals' assertion to the contrary, the probate court acted appropriately within its jurisdiction.