The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellant, In the Interest of M.C.S., a Child, and Concerning C.S., Respondent-Appellee
Jefferson County District Court No. 13CV545. Honorable Ann Gail Meinster, Judge.
Ellen G. Wakeman, County Attorney, Roy Wallis, Assistant County Attorney, Golden, Colorado, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Blair Q. McCarthy, Jeffrey Timlin, Guardians Ad Litem.
No Appearance for Respondent-Appellee.
Opinion by JUDGE PLANK[*]. Loeb, C.J., and Márquez*, J., concur.
[¶1] In this dependency and neglect proceeding concerning M.C.S., the Jefferson County Division of Children, Youth, and Families (Division) appeals from a juvenile court order dismissing its petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
[¶2] The Division filed a dependency and neglect petition concerning M.C.S. after it received a report that he was discharged from a teen shelter for possessing a pellet gun. He did not want to return home, and his father did not want him to return home. At that time, M.C.S. was only four months away from his eighteenth birthday. M.C.S.'s father appeared at an advisement hearing, entered a general denial, and requested that the matter be set for a jury trial. Because the attorney for M.C.S.'s father was not available during the ninety-day statutory period prescribed for adjudications ( see § 19-3-505(3), C.R.S. 2013), the court set the case for a jury trial after M.C.S. turned eighteen.
[¶3] The Division, joined by M.C.S.'s guardian ad litem (GAL), moved for summary judgment on its petition. M.C.S.'s father responded, denying that he had refused to pick up M.C.S. from the shelter or assessment center, was afraid of M.C.S., or that M.C.S. was beyond his control. He also moved to dismiss, asserting that because M.C.S. would not be adjudicated before he turned eighteen, the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to enter a disposition.
[¶4] The juvenile court ruled on the motions after M.C.S.'s eighteenth birthday. The court found that its jurisdiction terminated when M.C.S. turned eighteen without having been adjudicated dependent and neglected, and that no statute or case law allowed its jurisdiction to continue. The court, therefore, granted father's motion to dismiss and found the Division's summary judgment motion moot.
[¶5] The Division appeals from the dismissal. The GAL has filed a response in support of the Division's petition on appeal and joins in requesting ...