Summaries of Published Opinions, 0418 COBJ, Vol. 47, No. 4 Pg. 104
| Position | Vol. 47, 4 [Page 104] |
COLORADO SUPREME COURT
February 5, 2018
2018 CO 8. No. 17SC412. People in Interest of C.W.B., Jr.
Children’s Code—Dependency or Neglect Proceedings—Standing on Appeal.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the foster parents in this case had standing to appeal the trial court’s denial of a motion to terminate the parent–child legal relationship. The foster parents intervened in the trial court proceedings pursuant to CRS § 19-3-507(5)(a) and participated in a hearing on the guardian ad litem’s (GAL) motion to terminate the parent–child legal relationship between the mother and the child. The trial court denied the motion. Neither the state nor the GAL appealed the trial court’s ruling, but the foster parents did. The Court of Appeals concluded that the foster parents had standing to appeal the trial court’s ruling.
The Supreme Court concluded that the foster parents in this case did not have a legally protected interest in the outcome of termination proceedings, and that CRS § 19-3-507(5)(a) did not automatically confer standing on them to appeal the juvenile court’s order denying the termination motion, where neither the Department of Social Services nor the GAL sought review of the trial court’s ruling. Because the GAL was statutorily obligated to advocate for the best interests of the child, including on appeal, there was no need to confer standing on the foster parents to represent the best interests of the child on appeal. The Court therefore reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the appeal.
2018 CO 9. No. 16SA224. In re 2015–2016 Jefferson County Grand Jury.
Privileged Communications and Confidentiality—Crime–Fraud exception—Wiretapping.
A grand jury investigating M.W. and his company I.I. issued a subpoena duces tecum to I.I.’s attorney ordering her to produce all documents related to her representation of I.I. Along with the subpoena, the People served a notice of hearing to determine whether the documents were protected by the attorney–client privilege. In the notice, the People provided wiretap summaries as an officer of proof that the crime–fraud exception to the attorney–client privilege applied. Reasoning that I.I.’s entire endeavor was illegal, the district court ordered all of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial