permanency hearing (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

permanency hearing in Colorado

8 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2024 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
People Ex Rel. Mbgreen
coloctapp · 2003 · cited in 4 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2005–2024
2 sentences

2024See People in Interest of M.B. , 70 P.3d 618, 623 (Colo. App. 2003) (permanency hearings and termination hearings are separate proceedings that may overl ap). 8 However, even assuming section 19 -3-702(5)(e) applied, the caseworker’s expert testimony that the children were unlikely to be safe in L.R.’s home indicates that the court applied the requi red statutory criteria .

2014People in Interest of M.B., 70 P.3d 618, 623 (Colo.App.2003); see also § 19-1-108 (83.5), C.R.S. 2018.

44
M.S. v. Peoplegreen
colo · 1991 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005See M.S. v. People, 812 P.2d 632 (Colo.1991); People in Interest of A.R.M., 832 P.2d 1093 (Colo.App.1992); People in Interest of T.R.W., 759 P.2d 768 (Colo.App.1988).

2005See M.S. v. People, 812 P.2d 632 (Colo.1991); People in Interest of A.R.M., 832 P.2d 1093 (Colo.App.1992); People in Interest of T.R.W., 759 P.2d 768 (Colo.App.1988).

22
LAG v. People in Interest of AAGgreen
colo · 1996 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000See LAG. v. People, supra. As pertinent here, § 19-38-7028), C.R.S. 2000, provides that, at the permanency hearing, the court must determine whether there is a "substantial probability" that the child will be returned to the physical custody of the parent within six months.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
People in Interest of ARM green
coloctapp · 1992
2 sentences

2005See M.S. v. People, 812 P.2d 632 (Colo.1991); People in Interest of A.R.M., 832 P.2d 1093 (Colo.App.1992); People in Interest of T.R.W., 759 P.2d 768 (Colo.App.1988).

2005See M.S. v. People, 812 P.2d 632 (Colo.1991); People in Interest of A.R.M., 832 P.2d 1093 (Colo.App.1992); People in Interest of T.R.W., 759 P.2d 768 (Colo.App.1988).

22005–2005
People in Interest of TRW green
coloctapp · 1988
2 sentences

2005See M.S. v. People, 812 P.2d 632 (Colo.1991); People in Interest of A.R.M., 832 P.2d 1093 (Colo.App.1992); People in Interest of T.R.W., 759 P.2d 768 (Colo.App.1988).

2005See M.S. v. People, 812 P.2d 632 (Colo.1991); People in Interest of A.R.M., 832 P.2d 1093 (Colo.App.1992); People in Interest of T.R.W., 759 P.2d 768 (Colo.App.1988).

22005–2005
L.L. v. People green
colo · 2000
2 sentences

2003L.L. v. People, 10 P.3d 1271 (Colo.2000), a division of this court rejected the contention that a trial court acted without jurisdiction in conducting a permanency hearing outside the statutorily prescribed period.

2003L.L. v. People, 10 P.3d 1271 (Colo.2000), a division of this court rejected the contention that a trial court acted without jurisdiction in conducting a permanency hearing outside the statutorily prescribed period.

22003–2003
People Ex Rel. Lb green
coloctapp · 2011
1 sentence

2022Id. (emphasis added). ¶ 19 We also note that L.B. involved a permanency planning hearing conducted pursuant to section 19-3-702, C.R.S. 2022. 9 Under that section, a juvenile court determining a permanent placement for a child must consider “[w]hether reasonable efforts have been made to finalize the permanency goal.” § 19-3-702(3)(b). ¶ 20 Here, it is unclear whether the APR hearing was considered a permanency hearing.

12022–2022
People Ex Rel. Cm green
coloctapp · 2005
1 sentence

2014Id. at 1282 . {44 We reject father's assertion that the court must first find father unfit because parents have a fundamental liberty interest in their children, which foster parents do not have.

12014–2014

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-1-102 (8) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-604 (6) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-702 (6) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-1-103 (4) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-505 (4) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-1-101 (3) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-1-104 (3) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-507 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NY 174 (1999–2026) OR 115 (2002–2026) CA 86 (1995–2026) IA 48 (1989–2026) UT 47 (1999–2025) IL 38 (1999–2026) TX 35 (2002–2026) PA 33 (2000–2025) AL 20 (2002–2017) WY 20 (2010–2026) NJ 16 (2000–2022) AZ 16 (2000–2026) VT 13 (2001–2024) DC 11 (2001–2019) IN 11 (2003–2020) FL 9 (1978–2021) CO 8 (2000–2024) NM 8 (2004–2019) OH 7 (2008–2026) MO 7 (2015–2024) AK 7 (2001–2018) LA 6 (1993–2016) MT 6 (2002–2015) WV 6 (2009–2023) NC 4 (2000–2018) ND 3 (2010–2010) DE 3 (2015–2019) ID 3 (2010–2022) CT 3 (2004–2010) MD 2 (1996–2021) NE 2 (2016–2019) MA 2 (2013–2014) KY 2 (2001–2021)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check