miscarriage of justice exception in Colorado

2026See People in Interest of M.B., 2020 COA 13, ¶ 21 (“[G]iven the constitutional nature of parental rights, we will recognize a miscarriage of justice exception for review of unpreserved errors.”).

2026See In re R.G.B., 98 P.3d 958, 959 (Colo. App. 2004) (holding that we may consider an unpreserved error for the first time on appeal only if it involves “a miscarriage of justice); see also People in Interest of M.B., 2020 COA 13, ¶¶ 23-24 (holding that the miscarriage of justice exception to reviewing unpreserved claims has a high bar and a narrow scope applying only to limited situations in which an error by the juvenile court results in a grossly unfair outcome for the parent). 7 IV.

2026See People in Interest of E.S., 2021 COA 79, ¶ 14 (applying the miscarriage of justice exception to consider whether the juvenile court erred by allowing a blanket policy barring visitation).

2025See People in Interest of E.S., 2021 COA 79, ¶ 14 . ¶ 29 The miscarriage of justice exception has a high bar and a narrow scope, applying only to limited situations in which an error by the juvenile court, not otherwise properly preserved for appeal, results in a grossly unfair outcome for the parent.

2025People in Interest of A.E., 914 P.2d 534, 539 (Colo. App. 1996); see also M.B., ¶ 21 (“[G]iven the constitutional nature of parental rights, we will recognize a miscarriage of justice exception for review of unpreserved errors.”).

2025In those rare cases involving unusual or special circumstances, we may review unpreserved errors in a dependency or neglect case to prevent a miscarriage of justice. 17 M.B., ¶¶ 19-25, 459 P.3d at 770-71; see, e.g., People in Interest of T.W., 2022 COA 88M , ¶ 24, 519 P.3d 1071 , 1077; E.S., ¶ 14, 494 P.3d at 1145; People in Interest of A.E., 914 P.2d 534, 539 (Colo. App. 1996).

2026See In re R.G.B., 98 P.3d 958, 959 (Colo. App. 2004) (holding that we may consider an unpreserved error for the first time on appeal only if it involves “a miscarriage of justice); see also People in Interest of M.B., 2020 COA 13, ¶¶ 23-24 (holding that the miscarriage of justice exception to reviewing unpreserved claims has a high bar and a narrow scope applying only to limited situations in which an error by the juvenile court results in a grossly unfair outcome for the parent). 7 IV.

2021See People in Interest of M.B., 2020 COA 13, ¶ 21 , 459 P.3d 766 , 770-71 (“[G]iven the constitutional nature of parental rights, we will recognize a miscarriage of justice exception for review of unpreserved errors.”); In re R.G.B., 98 P.3d 958, 959 (Colo. App. 2004) (“Where an error of the trial court . . . involves a miscarriage of justice, we may consider the issue for the first time on appeal.”).

2026We have recognized the exception only in “rare cases, involving unusual or special circumstances, . . . to prevent an unequivocal and manifest injustice.” In re E.R.S., 2019 COA 40, ¶ 38 . ¶6 Father does not provide any explanation why the miscarriage of justice exception should apply to the unpreserved instructional issues he raises.

2025We have recognized the exception in “rare cases, involving unusual or special 13 circumstances, . . . to prevent an unequivocal and manifest injustice.” People in Interest of E.R.S., 2019 COA 40, ¶ 38 . ¶ 30 Father does not provide any explanation why the miscarriage of justice exception should apply to either his challenge to the treatment plan or to the scope of the juvenile court’s judicial notice.

2026See People v. Melendez, 102 P.3d 315, 322 (Colo. 2004) (To preserve an issue for appeal, a party must give the court “an adequate opportunity to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on [the] issue.”). ¶ 30 And, as before, we decline to review the claim of error under the miscarriage of justice exception to preservation because father does not explain why the exception applies. 12 IV.

2026See People in Interest of K.B., 2016 COA 21 , ¶ 21 (holding that the trial court erred by not making explicit findings that the treatment plan was appropriate 10 when mother raised the issue for the first time at the termination hearing); see also People in Interest of S.N-V., 300 P.3d 911 , 913 (Colo. App. 2011) (holding that the juvenile court must make statutory findings even when a parent agreed at the dispositional phase to the treatment plan).

2026See People in Interest of K.B., 2016 COA 21 , ¶ 21 (holding that the trial court erred by not making explicit findings that the treatment plan was appropriate 10 when mother raised the issue for the first time at the termination hearing); see also People in Interest of S.N-V., 300 P.3d 911 , 913 (Colo. App. 2011) (holding that the juvenile court must make statutory findings even when a parent agreed at the dispositional phase to the treatment plan).

2026But even assuming that this issue is properly before us, we discern no reversible error. ¶ 18 A juvenile court may appoint a GAL for a parent who has a behavioral or mental health disorder or an intellectual or developmental disability. § 19-1-111(2)(c), C.R.S. 2025; see People in Interest of T.M.S., 2019 COA 136, ¶ 5 .

2026Caylao-Do v. Logue, 2025 COA 42, ¶ 32 (“In a civil case, unpreserved issues are deemed waived.”). ¶ 21 And we decline father’s request to apply the miscarriage of justice exception.

2025Co. v. Elliott, 253 P.3d 1265, 1271 (Colo. App. 2011) (collecting cases); see also People in Interest of M.B., 2020 COA 13, ¶ 21 (recognizing the miscarriage of justice exception for review of unpreserved errors in dependency and neglect cases).

2024See People in Interest 3 of M.B., 2020 COA 13, ¶¶ 23-24 ; see also People in Interest of A.E., 914 P.2d 534, 539 (Colo. App. 1996). ¶8 The Department and guardian ad litem (GAL) rely on People in Interest of R.J.B., 2021 COA 4 , ¶ 33, to argue that there was no miscarriage of justice in this case because “father had notice of the hearing, advice of counsel, and the opportunity to be heard and defend.” See id. at ¶ 27 (Fundamentally fair procedures “must include a parent receiving notice of the hearing, advice of counsel, and the opportunity to be heard and defend.”) (citations omitted). ¶9 How

2020See, e.g., People in Interest of C.G., 2015 COA 3 In People in Interest of M.B. v. J.B., 188 Colo. 370 , 376, 535 P.2d 192 , 196 (1975), the supreme court said, without analysis, “[w]here the object of the amended petition was to terminate parental rights, it was plain error to proceed to the dispositional hearing in the absence of counsel for the children.” 4 The lack of reference to Crim.

2020See, e.g., People in Interest of C.G., 2015 COA 3 In People in Interest of M.B. v. J.B., 188 Colo. 370 , 376, 535 P.2d 192 , 196 (1975), the supreme court said, without analysis, “[w]here the object of the amended petition was to terminate parental rights, it was plain error to proceed to the dispositional hearing in the absence of counsel for the children.” 4 The lack of reference to Crim.

2020See, e.g., People in Interest of C.G., 2015 COA 3 In People in Interest of M.B. v. J.B., 188 Colo. 370 , 376, 535 P.2d 192 , 196 (1975), the supreme court said, without analysis, “[w]here the object of the amended petition was to terminate parental rights, it was plain error to proceed to the dispositional hearing in the absence of counsel for the children.” 4 The lack of reference to Crim.