Background
R.L.G. (the mother) appealed juvenile court judgments allocating parental responsibilities for her two children—J.A.M. and L.R.L.S-J.—to their respective fathers. The mother claimed the juvenile court violated her constitutional due process rights by denying her an opportunity to be heard on the allocation decision.
The parties filed a stipulation for reversal and remand, and the record showed that at a virtual hearing, after counsel read the proposed stipulated allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) into the record, the mother objected, stating it was “not what I agreed to.” The mother twice told the court she wanted to go to court and requested an evidentiary hearing. The judge responded by telling the mother to “stop interrupting.” Two weeks later, the court entered written APR judgments without holding the requested evidentiary hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the mother was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard, as required by due process. The court’s review of the record confirmed the parties’ factual assertions that the APR judgments were entered over the mother’s objection and without the evidentiary hearing she had requested.
The court emphasized that due process requires a party to have a meaningful opportunity to be heard, with the essence of due process being fundamental fairness. The judgment’s entry without affording this opportunity violated the mother’s constitutional rights. Citing precedent, the court noted that a judgment entered in violation of due process is void.
Accordingly, the court vacated the APR judgments and remanded the case to the juvenile court with directions to schedule new APR proceedings and provide the mother with a meaningful opportunity to be heard at those proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A party’s explicit objection to a proposed agreement cannot be overridden without providing an evidentiary hearing and meaningful opportunity to be heard.
- Silencing a party who objects to a proposed allocation of parental responsibilities violates procedural due process.
- Due process violations in family law matters require reversal and remand, not harmless error analysis.
- Juvenile courts must ensure genuine procedural fairness when allocating parental responsibilities, even in stipulated matters.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a critical protection in family law: courts cannot impose agreements affecting parental custody and responsibilities without genuinely hearing from all parties. Where a parent explicitly objects to a stipulation, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing, not dismiss the objection. This protects vulnerable parties from having their parental rights affected by procedurally defective judgments.
For practitioners and juvenile courts, the ruling clarifies that procedural due process in custody allocation cannot be bypassed through informal stipulation processes. When a party clearly objects and requests to be heard, the court has a constitutional obligation to provide a forum for that hearing before entering judgment affecting parental rights.