The Colorado Supreme Court adopted on Monday a package of revisions to the rules governing child welfare cases, while modifying one section that governs when a parent surrenders their right to have a jury decide if their child is neglected.

Earlier this month, the justices held a hearing to evaluate the long-running group effort to revise the rules of juvenile procedure. They heard the proposed package had achieved consensus among the entities with a stake in such proceedings. The proposal reflected recent changes to state law and clarified the unique position children occupy in dependency and neglect matters — the formal name for child neglect cases.

However, the Supreme Court ended up tweaking the language that describes when parents who have requested a jury trial will forfeit that choice — a question that is swirling in several pending cases before the court.

In one appeal, the justices were asked to consider whether a parent still preserves their right if they fail to appear for the trial, but their lawyer is present. Some members of the court were sympathetic to the idea that a “party,” which is the term the current rules use, could refer to someone who appears through their counsel only.

The new rules now clear up the confusion. The court replaced the word “party” with “respondent parent,” and made clear that the respondent parent is the one who has to appear for their chosen jury trial.

On the same day the court adopted the rules, it dismissed the appeal it heard this month raising the question of whether an attorney’s appearance is sufficient. The dismissal lets stand the Court of Appeals’ decision, which found an Arapahoe County mother who was absent from her child neglect trial could not rely on her lawyer’s presence to preserve her right to a jury trial.

During the hearing on the rules package, Justice William W. Hood III wondered whether the court should incorporate language to that effect. Court of Appeals Judge Craig R. Welling, who chairs the committee on juvenile procedural rules, said the drafters had not examined that question in detail, but “I think it would be worthwhile to just go ahead and add that language.”

The Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, which represents indigent parents in child neglect cases, criticized the post-hearing modification.

“The ORPC is disappointed the Supreme Court chose to make substantive rule changes affecting only the rights of parents without an opportunity for further public comment,” said Melissa Michaelis Thompson, the office’s executive director.

Otherwise, the Supreme Court kept intact the portion of the draft rules enabling trial judges to rescind a parent’s chosen jury trial if they fail to appear at a pretrial conference — as long as the parent is told to appear, receives notice about the consequences and lacks good cause for failing to be there. 

Historically, some judges canceled the planned jury trial if the parent did not show for the pretrial conference, but the Court of Appeals found nothing authorizes that practice currently. The Supreme Court is reviewing that issue in a separate case. While the rules change may telegraph the justices’ thinking, it will not affect the outcome of that appeal, as the new rules take effect for cases filed after July 1.