Colorado’s second-highest court invoked a new state law for the first time on Thursday and reinstated a child neglect case that both the child and her father wished to reopen.

House Bill 1227 took effect on Aug. 12, reversing a Colorado Supreme Court decision from 2025 that addressed what should happen after a county moves to dismiss the child neglect allegations against a parent and the child opposes the move. By 6-1, the court concluded in People in the Interest of R.M.P. that the government alone is authorized to pursue child welfare cases, and permitting individual parties to litigate cases would result in a “weaponized family court system.”

Justice Richard L. Gabriel dissented, arguing that the question was whether the government may “unilaterally” dismiss a child welfare case without a judge providing oversight about the correctness of that decision. He believed the answer was no.

This year, the legislature adopted his view and required judges to hold a hearing to determine if a county has “a reasonable basis” to dismiss the case following an objection from a child’s legal representative.

Before the R.M.P. decision, El Paso County Human Services was pursuing a child neglect case involving a girl, identified as M.G.W., and her father, identified as K.W. The parties entered into an agreement in which the county would assist the family for up to one year. Afterward, a judge would dismiss the case or deem the child neglected.

In early 2025, the county moved to dismiss the case, stating K.W. was in compliance with the terms of the agreement and the county no longer had “active safety concerns” about the child. A judge quickly granted the motion.

M.G.W. and K.W. protested, arguing they required further services from the county and asking for reconsideration.

Then the Supreme Court issued its R.M.P. decision. After District Court Judge Diana May considered the parties’ arguments about the effect of R.M.P., she concluded she had no authority to override El Paso County’s decision to dismiss the case.

M.G.W. and K.W. turned to the Court of Appeals. Although the litigants argued about whether the R.M.P. decision applied to their case, a three-judge panel concluded on Aug. 20 that it did not matter because of a key development: HB 1227, which overruled the Supreme Court, was now the law.

“Recall that the relief the youth seeks by appealing the juvenile court’s judgment is a determination that she is entitled to a hearing regarding whether the case should remain open,” wrote Judge Pax L. Moultrie. “Thus, the practical effect of this legislation is that it renders the youth’s appeal moot because it grants the youth the exact relief she is asking us to provide.”

The appellate panel returned the case to May with instructions to follow the new law, set a hearing, and determine if the county has reasonable grounds to dismiss the child neglect case.

The case is People in the Interest of M.G.W.