A Denver judge acted improperly by canceling a jury trial that two parents had requested in their child neglect case, the state’s second-highest court ruled last month.

Although three-judge panels of the Court of Appeals are not bound by each other’s decisions, an appellate panel on Oct. 19 agreed with their counterparts who concluded earlier this year that judges cannot revoke a parent’s demand for a jury trial simply because the parent does not show up for pretrial proceedings.

In the case out of Denver, the county sought to declare a newborn neglected after testing revealed the presence of fentanyl and methadone at birth. The parents denied that their child was neglected and invoked their right to a jury trial under state law. 

However, neither the mother nor the father appeared at a pretrial hearing. In response, Juvenile Court Judge Laurie A. Clark chose to set a bench trial, meaning she would decide whether the child was neglected. She told the parents’ lawyers they could request a jury if the parents appeared in person the day of the bench trial.

The parents failed to appear and Clark ruled the child was dependent and neglected – a step that can eventually lead to terminating a parent’s legal rights over their child.

Case: People in the Interest of S.R.R.C.

Decided: October 19, 2023

Jurisdiction: Denver

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: Terry Fox (author)

David Furman

Neeti V. Pawar

Background: Adams County judge wrongly canceled child neglect jury trial after mom failed to appear, appeals court finds

While her ruling was on appeal, the Court of Appeals issued a precedent-setting decision in September that concluded there was no legal basis for judges to unilaterally revoke a parent’s decision to have a jury trial solely because they fail to appear at a pretrial hearing. Instead, the procedural rules allow a jury trial to be converted to a bench trial only when a party does not appear for the trial itself.

“In reaching our conclusion, we are aware that requiring the personal appearance of respondent parents at a pretrial conference to preserve their right to a jury trial may be the practice of some juvenile courts,” wrote former Supreme Court Justice Alex J. Martinez, who sat on the panel at the chief justice’s assignment.

The panel reviewing the Denver case found that logic persuasive and concluded there were no grounds to cancel the jury trial the parents had requested. It did not matter, explained Judge Terry Fox, that the parents failed to appear for the trial itself because the conversion of a jury trial to a bench trial was improper at the outset.

“Here, the juvenile court similarly set a bench trial after the parents failed to appear at a pretrial hearing, despite counsel for each parent having expressly requested a jury trial,” she wrote. “As a result, the parents had not voluntarily waived their right to a jury trial by failing to appear at pretrial hearings or an erroneously set bench trial.”

The panel ordered a new jury trial.

The case is People in the Interest of S.R.R.C.