People in Interest of VMR, 768 P.2d 1268 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
People in Interest of VMR, 768 P.2d 1268 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
72 citation events (52 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Peo in Interest of IA (coloctapp, 2025-07-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Peo in Interest of IA
Colo. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo. App. 1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fottrell v. ICAO
Colo. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo. App. 1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Peo in Interest of EDA
Colo. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
People in Interest of V.M.R. , 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (C olo.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) in Interest of A.R
Colo. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
People in Interest of S.L., 2017 COA 160, ¶ 58 ; C.H., 166 P.3d at 290; D.G., 140 P.3d at 308 ; People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo. App. 1989); In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning Torrance P., 724 N.W.2d 623, 631 (Wis. 2006) (“[T]he statutory right to counsel [under the Wisconsin Children’s Code] includes the right to effective assistance of counsel[.]”); In the Interest of M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 544 (Tex. 2003) (“We hold that the statutory right to counsel in parental- rights termination cases embodies the right to effective counsel.”). ¶ 38 Without effe…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Carrington H. (2×)
Tenn. · 2016 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Jones, 205 S.W.3d at 794 ; In re V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo.App.1989); In re A.H.P., 232 Ga.App. 330 , 500 S.E.2d 418, 422 (1998); In re R.G., 165 Ill.App.3d 112 , 116 Ill.Dec. 69 , 518 N.E.2d 691 , 700-01 (1988); In re D.W., 385 N.W.2d at 579 ; In re Guardianship of A.W., 929 A.2d at 1038 ; In re K.L., 751 N.W.2d at 685 ; Jones v. Lucas Cnty.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A.M. v. A.C.
Colo. · 2013 · confidence medium
Parents are entitled to notice of the allegations supporting the motion to terminate, to have a hearing on the motion, and, at that hearing, to be assisted by legal counsel. § 19-3-602, C.R.S. (2012); People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo.App.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Rgb
Haw. · 2010 · confidence medium
Dep't of Human Servs., 361 Ark. 164 , 205 S.W.3d 778, 794 (2005) (adopting the federal criminal "standard for ineffectiveness set out in Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)]"); In re V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo.Ct.App. 1989) (holding that the Strickland standard applied to non-criminal cases such as parental termination cases); State v. Anonymous, 179 Conn. 155 , 425 A.2d 939, 943 (1979) (adopting the Connecticut criminal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel enunciated in Buckley v. Warden, 177 Conn. 538 , 418 A.2d 913, 916 (1979)); …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of RGB
Haw. · 2010 · confidence medium
Dep’t of Human Servs., 361 Ark. 164 , 205 S.W.3d 778, 794 (2005) (adopting the federal criminal “standard for ineffectiveness set out in Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ]”); In re V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo.Ct.App.1989) (holding that the Strickland standard applied to non-criminal eases such as parental termination cases); State v. Anonymous, 179 Conn. 155 , 425 A.2d 939, 943 (1979) (adopting the Connecticut criminal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel enunciated in Buckley v. Warden, 177 Conn. 538 , 418 A.2d 913, 916 (19…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Chaden M.
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Compare, e.g., Jones v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 361 Ark. 164 , 205 S.W.3d 778, 794 (2005) (concluding that right to counsel in termination proceedings includes right to effective assistance of counsel and adopting the Strickland standard for ineffectiveness); People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo.App.1989) (concluding that Strickland applies to termination proceedings); In the Interest of A.H.P., 232 Ga.App. 330 , 500 S.E.2d 418, 421-422 (1998) (recognizing that an indigent parent has a right to effective assistance of counsel in a termination proceeding and applyin…
cited Cited as authority (rule) People Ex Rel. Ael
Colo. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
People in Interest of A.E., 914 P.2d 534, 538 (Colo.App.1996); People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo.App.1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People ex rel. A.E.L.
Colo. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
People in Interest of A.E., 914 P.2d 534, 538 (Colo.App.1996); People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo.App.1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of C.H., a Child, and Concerning M.J.H., a/k/a M.J.S.
Colo. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
People in Interest of A.J., supra; People in Interest of T.D., supra; People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo.App.1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People ex rel. C.H.
Colo. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
People in Interest of A.J., supra; People in Interest of T.D., supra; People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo.App.1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People Ex Rel. Ch
Colo. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
People in Interest of A.J., supra ; People in Interest of T.D., supra ; People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo.App.1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of C.H., a Child, and Concerning M.J.H., a/k/a M.J.S.
Colo. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
People in Interest of A.J., supra; People in Interest of T.D., supra; People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo.App.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of M.S.
Tex. · 2003 · confidence medium
In re V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo.Ct.App.1989); Anonymous, 425 A.2d at 943 ; L.W. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 812 So.2d 551, 556 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2002); In re A.H.P., 232 Ga.App. 330 , 500 S.E.2d 418, 421-22 (1998); In re R.G., 165 Ill.App.3d 112 , 116 Ill.Dec. 69 , 518 N.E.2d 691 , 700-01 (1988); In re the Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of J.T., et at., 740 N.E.2d 1261, 1265 (Ind.Ct.App.2000); In re J.P.B., 419 N.W.2d 387, 390 (Iowa 1988); In re Rushing, 9 Kan.App.2d 541 , 684 P.2d 445, 449-50 (1984); In re Stephen, 514 N.E.2d at 1091 ; In re Trowbridge, 401…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re MS
Tex. · 2003 · confidence medium
P. 324(b)(2); Cecil v. Smith, 804 S.W.2d 509, 510-11 (Tex.1991). [26] Tex. Fam.Code § 107.013(a)(1). [27] See In re K.L., 91 S.W.3d 1 , 11 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, no pet.); In re B.L.D., 56 S.W.3d 203, 211-12 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001), rev'd on other grounds, 113 S.W.3d 340 , 2003 WL 21512622 (Tex.2003); In re J.M.S., 43 S.W.3d 60, 63 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); In re B.B., 971 S.W.2d 160, 172 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1998, pet. denied); Arteaga v. Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 924 S.W.2d 756, 762 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, writ denied); In re J.F., 888 S.W.2d 140, 143 (…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Adoption of JSPL
N.D. · 1995 · confidence medium
People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo.Ct.App.1989); Matter of Rich, 604 P.2d 1248, 1253 (Okla.1979); State ex rel.
cited Cited as authority (rule) M.L.L. v. Wessman
unknown court · 1995 · confidence medium
People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268,1270 (Colo.Ct.App.1989); Matter of Rich, 604 P.2d 1248, 1253 (Okla.1979); State ex rel.
examined Cited as authority (rule) People in Interest of CG (5×) also: Cited "see"
Colo. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Due Process As regards proceedings for the termination of a parent-child legal relationship: “Due process requires that [a] respondent be given notice of the termination proceedings and an opportunity to be heard or defend and to have the assistance of legal counsel.” People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo.App.1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. J.K.C.
Mo. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
People in the Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d at 1270; In re R.G., 116 Ill.Dec. at 78 , 518 N.E.2d at 700 ; In the Interest of J.P.B., 419 N.W.2d at 392 ; Matter of Trowbridge, 401 N.W.2d at 66 .
discussed Cited "see" in the Interest of S.B (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270-71 (Colo. App. 1989) (deciding that parent’s absence from termination hearing was not prejudicial where parent was represented by counsel and personal presence would have had little effect on the proceeding).
cited Cited "see" In Re Catholic Charities & Community Services
Colo. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268 (Colo.App.1989).
discussed Cited "see" State ex rel. Human Services Department
N.M. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268 , 1270 (Colo.Ct.App.1989); In re R.G., 165 Ill.App.3d 112 , 116 Ill.Dec. 69, 78-79 , 518 N.E.2d 691 , 700-01 (1988); In re A.R.S., 480 N.W.2d 888, 891 (Iowa 1992); In re Rushing, 9 Kan.App.2d 541 , 684 P.2d 445, 449 (1984); In re Stephen, 514 N.E.2d at 1091 ; Powell v. Simon (In re Simon), 431 N.W.2d at 74 (citing In re Trowbridge, 155 Mich.App. 785 , 401 N.W.2d 65 (1986)); In re Erin G., 527 N.Y.S.2d at 490 ; Burks, 375 S.E.2d at 678 ; Jones, 546 N.E.2d at 473 ; In re M.D.(S.), 485 N.W.2d at 55 .
cited Cited "see" Matter of Parental Rights of James Wh
N.M. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo.Ct.App. 1989); In re R.G., 165 Ill.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People Ex Rel. Sxm
Colo. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
In People in Interest of C.G., 885 P.2d 355, 357 (Colo.App.1994), another division of this court held that "[a]n action for termination of the parent-child legal relationship is a civil action; therefore, neither due process nor other constitutional guarantees confer a right of confrontation on a respondent or require his presence at a termination hearing." Id. ; see also People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268 , 1270 (Colo.App.1989) (Sixth Amendment right to confrontation applies to criminal cases; there is no similar right in a civil trial).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People ex rel. S.X.M.
Colo. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence medium
In People in Interest of C.G., 885 P.2d 355, 357 (Colo.App.1994), another division of this court held that "(aln action for termination of the parent-child legal relationship is a civil action; therefore, neither due process nor other constitutional guarantees confer a right of confrontation on a respondent or require his presence at a termination hearing." Id.; see also People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Colo.App.1989) (Sixth Amendment right to confrontation applies to criminal cases; there is no similar right in a civil trial).
cited Cited "see, e.g." LW v. Department of Children and Families
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268 , 1270 (Colo.Ct.App.1989); Anonymous, 425 A.2d at 942-43 ; A.H.P., 500 S.E.2d at 421-22 ; In re R.G., 165 Ill.
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, In the Interest of V.M.R. and R.W.R., Children, And Concerning R.R., Respondent-Appellant.
87CA1954.
Colorado Court of Appeals.
Jan 5, 1989.
768 P.2d 1268
Van Cise and Criswell.
Published

[*1269] William Thiebaut, Jr., Sp. County Atty., Pueblo, for petitioner-appellee.

Jack Jenkins, Pueblo, Guardian Ad Litem.

Kelly & Potter, P.C., Gary J. Raso, Pueblo, for respondent-appellant.

ENOCH,[*] Judge.

The respondent father appeals the trial court's judgment terminating his parent/child legal relationship with his two minor children. We affirm.

Respondent was not present at the termination hearing because of his incarceration in the State of Kansas on an unrelated matter. However, he was represented at the hearing by court-appointed counsel. Following the hearing, and entry of the termination order, the court discharged respondent's counsel.

I.

The respondent, by his counsel newly appointed for this appeal, first argues that[*1270] the trial court's decision to terminate his parental rights should be set aside because he received ineffective assistance of counsel prior to and at the hearing. We disagree.

In criminal cases, an accused is entitled by constitutional mandate to receive reasonably effective assistance of counsel acting as his diligent, conscientious advocate. In such cases, a contention of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a determination whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functions of the adversarial process that the proceeding cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); People v. Fulton, 754 P.2d 398 (Colo.App.1987). However, the burden rests on the accused to show (1) that counsel's performance was deficient in that it fell below the level of reasonably competent assistance and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the accused of a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, supra; People v. Fulton, supra.

In non-criminal cases in which, such as here, the right to appointed counsel is provided for by statute, see § 19-11-103(2) and § 19-1-106(1)(d), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B) (counsel appointed on request, after advisement of the right, if parent found to be indigent), we hold that the standard is the same.

Here, respondent contends that counsel failed to invoke § 19-3-103(4), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 8B) as a method of assuring his presence at the hearing. He argues that a reasonably competent attorney would have moved the court to require respondent's presence in accordance with the above provision. He also contends that counsel failed to direct the court's attention to § 24-60-201 and § 24-60-206, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10B). We reject these contentions.

As the court noted, this is not a criminal proceeding; therefore, § 24-60-201 and § 24-60-206 are inapplicable here. Also, in the absence of an interstate compact or agreement, the State of Kansas is not obliged to produce the respondent in accordance with § 19-3-103(4) for a hearing of this nature. Thus, it can reasonably be inferred that counsel did not rely upon the above provisions because they simply do not apply to the facts in this case. Therefore, respondent has failed to prove his legal counsel's performance was deficient, much less that such performance prejudiced the final outcome.

II.

The respondent also argues that his involuntary absence denied his right to due process. We disagree.

Due process requires that respondent be given notice of the termination proceedings and an opportunity to be heard or defend and to have the assistance of legal counsel. The respondent contends that in addition to his absence, his opportunity to be heard or defend was denied because of counsel's failure to solicit a pro se brief or deposition from the respondent.

However, as the court held in In re Rich, 604 P.2d 1248 (Okla.1979): "[S]ince legal counsel was serving, we must ascribe the absence of deposition testimony in the record to deliberate strategy choices of counsel acting in the best interests of their client's cause."

Because respondent had the opportunity to appear through court-appointed counsel, his absence was not prejudicial error. Courtroom confrontations with one's civil adversary are not required either by due process or other constitutional strictures. The Sixth Amendment right to confrontation applies to criminal cases; there is no similar right in a civil trial. In re Rich, supra.

The record here reveals the trial court did everything possible to give the respondent the opportunity for a fair and just hearing. Further, the evidence in the[*1271] record amply supports the judgment which would likely have been little affected by defendant's presence at the hearing.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

VAN CISE and CRISWELL, JJ., concur.

[*] Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of the Colo. Const., art. VI, Sec. 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10B).