Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
In re: People in interest of minor child R.M.P. & concerning R.P.
In the Colorado Supreme Court’s 1982 opinion in McCall v. District Court, the court held that the state of Colorado is the exclusive party entitled to bring dependency and neglect proceedings. Four years later, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals in People in Int. of R.E. carved out a narrow exception to that rule, holding that once the state has filed a dependency and neglect petition, a child, through a guardian ad litem, may pursue a determination of the petition’s merits — even if the state wishes to dismiss the case.
Here, the state moved to dismiss its petition in dependency and neglect against a father, R.P., but R.P.’s child, R.M.P., opposed the motion and asked that this case proceed to an adjudication of the merits. In contrast with the child in R.E., R.M.P. is represented by a counsel for youth, a new form of representation under Section 19-3-203 of state law, for children aged 12 and older. Unlike a guardian ad litem, who represents the child’s best interests, a counsel for youth represents the child in the same manner as an attorney directly representing a client.
This case presents the issue of whether a child, through their counsel for youth, may prosecute a dependency and neglect petition against their own parent when the state has determined that the petition should be dismissed. Underpinning this issue is whether the state Supreme Court’s holding in McCall was properly circumscribed by the Court of Appeals’ decision in R.E., and whether any non-state party may prosecute a dependency and neglect petition when the state has determined that doing so would not be a valid exercise of its parens patriae authority.
Consistent with the court’s holding in McCall, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that the state, in its role as parens patriae, is the sole party that may prosecute dependency and neglect proceedings. Nothing in the Children’s Code gives a guardian ad litem or a counsel for youth authority to prosecute a dependency and neglect petition. The court overruled R.E. to the extent it is inconsistent with its opinion.
Because only the state has standing to prosecute a dependency and neglect petition, R.M.P. may not prosecute the petition in dependency and neglect when the state has determined that the petition should be dismissed.
The court made the order to show cause absolute.