A Denver juvenile court judge violated a mother’s right to a jury trial in her child welfare case by dismissing jurors after she was 10 minutes late without finding out why, the Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday.

Although child welfare proceedings, formally known as dependency and neglect cases, are not criminal and have no constitutional guarantee of a trial by jury, the Colorado legislature has established in law the right to request a jury trial in such circumstances.

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals could find no Colorado court precedent establishing whether a parent waives that right by being late to arrive. Judge David H. Yun, writing in the panel’s July 21 opinion, decided the answer in this instance was no.

“In reaching this conclusion, we do not suggest that a parent can never waive her right to a jury trial by being late,” Yun cautioned. “However, before a court determines whether a waiver has occurred, it should inquire further about the parent’s whereabouts and the circumstances concerning her absence.”

A woman identified as C.L.E. denied the government’s allegations that her children were abused or neglected and requested a jury decide the question. Presiding Juvenile Court Judge D. Brett Woods scheduled a two-day trial, telling C.L.E. to arrive by 12:45 p.m. on the first day of trial so that proceedings could begin at 1 p.m.

He warned C.L.E. that if she was later than 15 minutes, she would “waive her right to a jury trial as a matter of law.”

By 1:10 p.m. on the first day, C.L.E. was not present, although her lawyer was. Woods then dismissed the jurors who had shown up. C.L.E.’s lawyer objected when Woods indicated the trial would proceed as a bench trial, with only the judge deciding the outcome.

“I did get a text from (C.L.E.) after 1 o’clock saying that there was a problem with her Lyft,” the lawyer explained, adding there was “some sort of detour.”

“Well, it’s now pushing 1:16, and she’s still not with us,” Woods replied. “We had 50 jurors here who were on time and had no trouble getting here, and she didn’t make it. So it’s not fair to the jury to keep them waiting.”

By 1:30, C.L.E. was in the courtroom. 

“I have been a judge now for about 15 years, and I can tell you this is the first time in all that time that I’ve released a jury. But you weren’t here,” Woods told her. “And the rules are pretty clear that if you’re not here, you waive your right to a jury. So that’s what happened.”

The next day, Woods tried the case on his own and determined C.L.E.’s children were dependent and neglected. Such a decision can eventually lead to a judge’s termination of the legal relationship between a parent and child. C.L.E. appealed, arguing her tardiness did not amount to a relinquishment of her state law right to a jury trial.

In looking to other states for guidance, the appellate panel agreed the law did not support Woods’ decision. The judge should have asked about C.L.E.’s whereabouts and potentially given her more time to arrive before dismissing the jurors.

“The court failed to make such inquiries or accommodations, and while its concern about inconveniencing the jurors was understandable, it was an insufficient reason to overcome the mother’s statutory right to a jury trial,” Yun explained.

The Court of Appeals reversed Woods’ order and returned the case to the juvenile court for a jury trial.

The case is People in the Interest of C.C. and R.R.E.G.