Colorado § 19-3-205 - Continuing jurisdiction.

§ 19-3-205. Continuing jurisdiction.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this article 3, the jurisdiction of the court over any child or youth adjudicated as neglected or dependent shall continue until the child or youth becomes eighteen and one-half years of age unless earlier terminated by court order; except that:

(a) If a determination is pending or the youth has been determined to be an incapacitated person pursuant to section 15-14-102, then jurisdiction continues until either the youth has made a complete transition into adult disability services and it is in the youth's best interests for the juvenile court to terminate jurisdiction or the youth reaches twenty-one years of age or such greater age of foster care eligibility as required by federal law, whichever comes first;

(b) If a youth is making the transition to adult services pursuant to section 25.5-6-409.5, then the court may extend jurisdiction until such transition is complete; or

(c) Jurisdiction pursuant to this section is not required to be terminated due to age before October 1, 2021.

(2) Repealed.

(3) An eligible youth has the right to choose whether to participate in the foster youth in transition program created in section 19-7-303.

(4) (a) If a youth who is sixteen years of age or older but less than eighteen years of age and who is in the custody of a county department runs away, and the youth's whereabouts have been unknown for more than ninety days, then the county department may file a motion to terminate jurisdiction.

(b) The court shall set a hearing no later than thirty-five days after the county department files the motion to determine whether the county department has made reasonable efforts to locate the youth prior to terminating jurisdiction. The hearing may be waived upon stipulation by all parties.

(c) The motion must be withdrawn and the hearing may be vacated or converted to a review hearing if the youth returns.

Source: L. 87: Entire title R&RE, p. 762, § 1, effective October 1. L. 2011: Entire section amended, (HB 11-1079), ch. 83, p. 226, § 8, effective August 10. L. 2017: (2)(a)(II) amended, (SB 17-294), ch. 264, p. 1394, § 41, effective May 25. L. 2021: (1) amended and (3) and (4) added, (HB 21-1094), ch. 340, p. 2216, § 5, effective June 25. L. 2022: IP(1) amended, (SB 22-212), ch. 421, p. 2973, § 41, effective August 10; (2) repealed, (HB 22-1245), ch. 88, p. 418, § 4, effective August 10.

Editor's note: (1) This section was contained in a title that was repealed and reenacted in 1987. Provisions of this section, as it existed in 1987, are similar to those contained in 19-3-118 as said section existed in 1986, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this title.

(2) The provisions of subsection (2) in House Bill 11-1079 have been relettered and renumbered on revision for ease of location.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.

Age is a jurisdictional prerequisite both at the filing of a petition and at the time of adjudication. In a case where the child was just shy of 18 at the time the dependency and neglect petition was filed but turned 18 before the hearing, the juvenile court lost subject matter jurisdiction by the time of the original hearing. Continuing jurisdiction under this section cannot be conferred if the court never had the proper subject matter jurisdiction for the original adjudication under § 19-3-501. People in Interest of M.C.S., 2014 COA 46, 327 P.3d 360.

Jurisdiction not affected by removing case from docket. A trial court order removing a parental rights termination case from the docket of cases maintained by the court did not affect the court's continuing statutory jurisdiction over the child involved. People in Interest of T.A.F. v. B.F., 624 P.2d 349 (Colo. App. 1980).

Whether good cause exists to retain jurisdiction is within the juvenile court's discretion and this determination is necessarily made on a case-by-case basis, after careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case. People in Interest of J.L.P., 870 P.2d 1252 (Colo. App. 1994).

Losing continuing jurisdiction requires another state to attempt to acquire jurisdiction from this state's court. Because the court in another state did not seek to exercise jurisdiction under the Uniform Child-custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and termination of parental rights is not a new child-custody proceeding, the court here maintained its exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under subsection (1). People in Interest of E.W., 2022 COA 12, 508 P.3d 256, aff'd, 2022 CO 51, 523 P.3d 422.

Juvenile court properly transferred jurisdiction to the Oglala Sioux Tribe since, even for an Indian child who lives off reservation, the tribal court is still the preferred jurisdiction under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act absent a showing of good cause to the contrary. People in Interest of J.L.P., 870 P.2d 1252 (Colo. App. 1994).

Transfer of jurisdiction to tribal court was not improper where the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the motion to transfer jurisdiction was timely and that no undue hardship would result if the Tribe obtained jurisdiction, and without consideration of the elements of the best interests of child set forth in § 14-10-124. People in Interest of J.L.P., 870 P.2d 1252 (Colo. App. 1994).

No error in juvenile court's failure to hold a hearing before determining whether good cause existed to retain jurisdiction where all parties participated in preliminary arguments and briefing on this issue and none of the parties objected to trial court's oral and written orders indicating its reservation of the right to rule on the issue without further hearings. People in Interest of J.L.P., 870 P.2d 1252 (Colo. App. 1994).

An order denying termination of the parent-child legal relationship does not "completely determine the rights of the parties involved" and is interlocutory in nature; therefore, such an order is not final and appealable. People in Interest of D.B., 855 P.2d 27 (Colo. App. 1993).

When a child has been adjudicated dependent or neglected, all matters related to that child's status must be addressed through the open dependency and neglect case. The dependency and neglect court maintains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over any such child. People in Interest of E.M., 2016 COA 38M, 417 P.3d 843, aff'd sub nom. People in Interest of L.M., 2018 CO 34, 416 P.3d 875; People in Interest of D.C.C., 2018 COA 98, 486 P.3d 1183.

A county department of human services seeking to terminate through article 5, relinquishment and adoption, an incarcerated father's parental rights to children who had been adjudicated as dependent and neglected was required to proceed instead through the laws and courts created for this article 3, dependency and neglect. People in Interest of E.M., 2016 COA 38M, 417 P.3d 843, aff'd sub nom. People in Interest of L.M., 2018 CO 34, 416 P.3d 875.

When a court declares a child dependent or neglected in a case filed under this article 3, a court presiding over a separate parentage proceeding under article 4 loses jurisdiction to determine that child's parentage. All matters pertaining to the child's status must be addressed in the open dependency and neglect case. People in Interest of D.C.C., 2018 COA 98, 486 P.3d 1183.