Opinion

People in Interest of AE

  • 20 Brief Times Rptr. 215
  • 914 P.2d 534
  • 1996 Colo. App. LEXIS 49
  • 1996 WL 74388
Court
Colorado Court of Appeals
Filed
Feb 22, 1996
Status
Published
Author
Ney
On the bench
Taubman, Kapelke, Ney
Cited by
40 cases
Authority
More cited than 4.9%

In some “limited situations[,]” “an error by the trial court, not otherwise properly preserved for appeal, should be characterized as fundamental or one causing a miscarriage of justice, thereby allowing us to consider it on appeal.”

How later courts described this case

  • In some “limited situations[,]” “an error by the trial court, not otherwise properly preserved for appeal, should be characterized as fundamental or one causing a miscarriage of justice, thereby allowing us to consider it on appeal.”
  • "I write separately *504because I believe that summary judgment procedures are not appropriate in a termination proceeding under the Children's Code."
  • “[T]he required standard of clear and convincing evidence in parental termination 4 proceedings significantly limits the cases in which summary judgment would be appropriate . . . .”
  • unless otherwise ordered by the court, motion must be filed 75 days prior to trial

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Judge NEY

specially concurring.

I concur with the majority that the judgment terminating the parent/ehild legal relationship between R.H. and A.E. must be reversed. I write separately because I believe that summary judgment procedures are not appropriate in a termination proceeding under the Children’s Code.

The majority recognizes that parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children such that, before the state may completely and irrevocably sever a parent’s rights in his or her natural child, due process requires that the parent be permitted to participate in a meaningful manner in the termination proceedings. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). However, although the majority recognizes that § 19-3-602(1), C.R.S. (1995 Cum.Supp.) provides for termination only after a separate hearing, it also determines that such a hearing need not be an evidentiary hearing and a summary proceeding may be used. With this conclusion I cannot agree.

Because termination of the pareni/child relationship so drastically affects a parent’s liberty interest, I would hold that summary judgment is inappropriate in the context of termination of parental rights. See In re Interest of Philip W., 189 Wis.2d 432 , 525 N.W.2d 384 (Wis.App.1994); In re Christina T., 590 P.2d 189 (Okla.1979).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.