Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Colorado Court of Appeals · Born 1948
People Ex Rel. Rd
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2012-03-01
In this dependency and neglect case, the El Paso County Department of Human Services sought to terminate the parental rights of K.L. (mother) and A.J.D. (father) after their children were removed from an unlivable home and the parents failed to comply with a court-approved treatment plan. The Colorado Court of Appeals vacated the termination of father's parental rights, holding that the trial court violated his statutory right to counsel under C.R.S. § 19-3-202(1) by ending his attorney's participation after finding him in default, later allowing counsel to withdraw, and requiring him to proceed pro se without adequate representation at critical stages of the hearing. The court concluded that this statutory violation was structural error not subject to harmless-error review and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the termination of mother's parental rights, finding that clear and convincing evidence established the treatment plan's failure, her unfitness as a parent, and the unlikelihood of change within a reasonable time under C.R.S. § 19-3-604(1)(c).
family lawprocedure
In Re Tlb
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2012-01-19
This case involved an international child custody dispute between a mother residing in Colorado and a father in Canada over their two children, after the mother removed the children to Colorado without notice in 2007; the father obtained a Canadian custody order and filed a Hague Convention petition in Colorado seeking their return. The Colorado trial court held that Canada had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to determine parental responsibilities, while exercising temporary emergency jurisdiction to allow the children to remain with the mother in Colorado pending further Canadian proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the appeal was not moot despite the Canadian court's subsequent October 2011 custody order (which awarded sole custody to the father after a hearing), because the question of subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA remained unresolved. The court reasoned that Canada was the proper forum under the UCCJEA given the children's lifelong residence there and the first custody proceeding having been initiated there, that the mother had fully participated with counsel in the Canadian proceedings (precluding due-process claims), and that no exception applied based on alleged violations of fundamental human rights or spousal abuse findings.
family lawprocedure
Sheep Mountain Alliance v. Board of County Commissioners
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2011-12-08 · cited 16×
The case involved Sheep Mountain Alliance's challenge to the Montrose County Board of County Commissioners' decision granting Energy Fuels a special use permit to build and operate a uranium and vanadium mill and tailings facility in the Paradox Valley, with conditions including limits on processing rates and water use safeguards. SMA sought review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), claiming the Board abused its discretion by failing to properly record certain hearings, violating due process, and adopting an annual averaging scheme for the 500-ton-per-day processing limit without adequate evidence on water supply impacts. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's resolution, holding that the record showed substantial compliance with zoning hearing and notice requirements, with any procedural issues causing no prejudice. It further concluded that competent evidence, including an independent consultant's updated opinion and multiple permit conditions on water monitoring and compliance, reasonably supported the Board's findings on water availability and operational limits.
environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure
In Re Es
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2011-07-07
This case involved a post-divorce dispute over allocation of parental responsibilities for minor child E.S., whose parents are Auriel Lauzon and Timothy Smith. Nonparent Laura Silvernail, who had taken E.S. into her home under a temporary guardianship agreement initiated by Smith, intervened and sought primary parenting time after the parents also requested it. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed that Silvernail had standing under C.R.S. § 14-10-123(1)(b) because E.S. was not in the physical care of either parent at the time and the arrangement was voluntary. However, the court vacated the trial court's order allocating primary residential custody to Silvernail and remanded for further findings, holding that the court failed to apply the required clear-and-convincing-evidence standard and consider special factors to justify overriding a fit parent's rights under Troxel v. Granville. The case was remanded with current orders to remain in effect pending new proceedings.
family law
People v. Montoya
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2011-06-23 · cited 2×
In People v. Montoya, the defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated driving after revocation prohibited in exchange for probation and dismissal of other charges, but the trial court imposed two years of probation with ten months in the Pueblo County Jail work release program plus 10,000 hours of useful public service. Montoya sought to avoid the jail condition due to his seizure disorder and submitted physician notes stating he was medically unable to work. The appellate court concluded that Colorado law limits jail time as a probation condition to no more than ninety days unless it is part of a work release program, and the trial court's finding that Montoya could perform work was clearly erroneous in light of the medical evidence. The court therefore vacated the sentence and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the statutory requirements.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. Blue
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2011-06-20 · cited 19×
In People v. Blue, the prosecution charged defendant Tony Blue with attempt to influence a public servant, a felony, after he gave a false name to police officers during an encounter outside a library to avoid an outstanding arrest warrant. The trial court granted Blue's motion to reduce the charge to false reporting to authorities, a misdemeanor, finding that the specific statute controlled over the general one and that prosecuting under the general statute would violate equal protection. On interlocutory appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals first held the appeal timely because the prosecution's motion for reconsideration suspended the appeal deadline until denial of that motion. The court then reversed on the merits, ruling that the two statutes address distinct conduct and mental states—attempt to influence requires specific intent to alter an official's action while false reporting requires only knowing provision of false information—so both may be charged and equal protection is not violated. The case was remanded for reinstatement of the original charge.
criminal lawprocedure