Members of the Colorado Supreme Court heard on Wednesday that a long-running group effort to revise the rules of juvenile procedure has culminated in an acceptable package of changes — including a proposed answer to one disputed legal question pending before the justices.

During a public comment hearing and in written remarks submitted beforehand, members of the court heard that a roughly decade-long process to revise the rules for child welfare cases had achieved consensus among the entities with a stake in such proceedings.

“I was very curious, as we sent these rules to you and opened up the comment period, what we would get,” said Judge Craig R. Welling of the Court of Appeals, who chairs the Rules of Juvenile Procedure Committee. “But I didn’t receive any pushback or resistance to these rules. And we had a committee meeting last week and I asked, ‘Why is this? Is no news good news? What do you think it is?’ And I think, first and foremost, it’s the fact that we had all of the stakeholders at the table and those stakeholders were listened to.”

The proposal reflects recent changes to state law and clarifies the unique position children occupy in dependency and neglect matters — the formal name for child neglect proceedings. 

However, Justice William W. Hood III noted his court on Tuesday had heard three cases addressing the right to a jury trial in neglect proceedings. Under the law, a parent may demand a jury decide whether their child is neglected, and will surrender that right by not showing up for the trial.

Historically, some judges canceled the planned jury trial if the parent did not show for the pretrial conference. The Court of Appeals has found nothing authorizes that practice currently, but the proposed rule changes would clarify that trial judges could rescind the jury trial going forward — as long as the parent is told to appear, receives notice about the consequences and lacks good cause for failing to be there.

“I was just curious to know whether there was any ORPC pushback on that issue,” said Hood, referring to the Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, which represents indigent parents. “It seems like that may have been a subject of some disagreement.”

“I can confidently say I think all parties left the table generally feeling good about the process,” responded Anna Ulrich, a staff attorney with the Office of the Child’s Representative who is a member of the juvenile rules committee.

Welling added that there was some concern during the drafting about the parents’ loss of their jury trial right if they do not appear at a pretrial conference. He said the committee balanced the need to put parents on notice of the consequences with the ability of trial judges to efficiently try a case and not summon jurors unnecessarily.

“That’s why, I think as a practical matter, trial courts have been using this pretrial conference as a screening device to see if the parties are still intending on going forward,” Welling said. The proposal “strikes that balance of ensuring the jury right is protected, but there is some safeguarding against having unnecessary preparation for a jury trial that’s going to get vacated.”

Hood raised another question the Supreme Court considered as part of its trio of child neglect cases this week: Whether a parent can “appear” through their lawyer, or if they only surrender their jury trial right if both they and their attorney fail to show.

He suggested the court might “include some language that says counsel can’t fly solo at a jury trial.” 

Welling responded that the drafters had not considered that aspect in detail.

He endorsed “any clarity that you could go ahead and add here based on the conversations that you’re having …. I think it would be worthwhile to just go ahead and add that language” to the rules.

Justice Brian D. Boatright asked about another component of the rules describing the disclosure and discovery of evidence in child neglect cases. Last year, the Supreme Court enacted detailed guidance for obtaining evidence, and Boatright was concerned about the effects of the new system.

“It promotes litigation, and trying to get to the truth of the matter is paramount,” he said. “Unlike civil cases that litigate what happened maybe years ago, in the D&N’s, we’re litigating what’s happening. And a lot of the information is occurring as it unfolds.”

Lisa R. Shellenberger, a family law attorney, testified she finds the standardized procedures reduce the amount of arguing that she used to see over evidence. She recalled recently asking a county to provide records in a child neglect case on a Thursday.

“By Monday, I had responsive records,” Shellenberger said. “That was a very wonderful experience to be a part of because that was the very first experience in a dependency and neglect case where I had sought discovery and it was produced not only without resistance or hesitation, but in a forthright, forthcoming manner.”