 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People7/28/2005
ORDER VACATED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
Loeb and Sternberg, JJ., concur
M.M. (mother) appeals the dispositional order entered in the dependency and neglect proceeding concerning her child, J.L. Mother's court-appointed attorney appeals the order denying his motion to be relieved of the appointment. We vacate the dispositional order and remand for further proceedings.
I.
Mother claims, the Department of Human Services concedes, and we agree, that the trial court erred by entering the dispositional order without first holding an adjudicatory hearing and entering an order adjudicating the child dependent and neglected.
A trial court may not enter a dispositional order without having first entered an order adjudicating the child dependent or neglected. Section 19-3-507(1)(a), C.R.S. 2004 ("After making an order of adjudication, the court shall hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition best serving the interests of the child and the public."); see also E.O. v. People, 854 P.2d 797, 800 (Colo. 1993)(noting that the Children's Code provides for a bifurcated proceeding in a dependency and neglect action, and that if the court determines in the first phase that there are grounds to adjudicate the child dependent and neglected and sustains the petition, it proceeds to the second, or dispositional, phase, which commences with entry of a dispositional order and adoption of a treatment plan); People in Interest of D.R.W., 91 P.3d 453 (Colo. App. 2004)(same).
Here, mother denied the allegations in the petition and, pursuant to ยงยง 19-1-105(1) and 19-3-202(2), C.R.S. 2004, demanded a jury. The court did not hold an adjudicatory hearing or enter an adjudicatory order. Instead, it adopted the department's proposed treatment plan as a dispositional order. However, as noted above, the court did not have authority to enter the dispositional order before adjudicating the child dependent and neglected. See People in Interest of O.E.P., 654 P.2d 312 (Colo. 1982); People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1982).
Accordingly, we conclude that the case must be remanded to the trial court to hold an adjudicatory hearing.
II.
Mother's attorney contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to be relieved of the appointment. More specifically, he asserts he did not agree to accept court appointments in dependency and neglect proceedings and that he cannot be compelled to represent an indigent parent in such proceedings without just compensation . We remand for further proceedings.
An indigent parent has the right to court-appointed counsel in a dependency and neglect proceeding. Sections 19-1-105(2), 19-3-202(1), C.R.S. 2004; see also Waters v. Dist. Court, 935 P.2d 981 (Colo. 1997); People in Interest of A.M.D., supra; People in Interest of V.W., 958 P.2d 1132 (Colo. App. 1998).
A trial court may appoint an attorney who has a contract with the state to represent indigent parents in such cases or an attorney who is not under contract with the state and is paid on an hourly fee basis. The hourly fee and limit on total compensation paid to a non-contract attorney for work on a dependency and neglect case are determined by the state. Chief Justice Directive 04-05, Appointment and Payment Procedures for Court Appointed Counsel for Children and Indigent Persons in Titles 12, 14, 15, 19 (Dependency and Neglect Only), 22, 25, 27, and Guardians Ad Litem, Non-Attorney Special Advocates and Court Visitors Paid by the State Court Administrator's Office (May 1, 2004)(rev. Sept. 1, 2004).
Here, the appointment order indicates that "no contract system was in
Page 1 2 3 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|