People in Interest of Kay.W.
2025 CO 48. No. 24SC621. Dependency and Neglect Proceedings—Adjudicatory Trials—Jury Demand—Jury Waiver—Failure to Appear—Timeliness of Renewing Jury Demand—CRS § 19-3-202—C.R.J.P. 4.3—CRCP 39—Default Judgment.
June 30, 2025
In adjudicating five children dependent or neglected as to father in this dependency and neglect proceeding, the juvenile court held a bench trial instead of a jury trial. The supreme court determined that the juvenile court did not err.
There were two adjudicatory proceedings in this case. Father demanded a jury trial before the first proceeding but then failed to appear for trial, thereby waiving his statutory right to a jury trial. The juvenile court then mistakenly entered a default adjudicatory judgment. But the juvenile court eventually corrected course, vacated the default judgment, and set a new adjudicatory trial (this time, a bench trial). Father appeared at the second proceeding, and following the bench trial, the juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent or neglected as to him. On appeal, he claimed that the juvenile court should have held a jury trial, and a division of the court of appeals agreed with him.
The supreme court held that, even assuming (without deciding) that father’s waiver of his statutory jury trial right did not extend to the second proceeding, he still cannot prevail. Father never demanded a jury trial for purposes of the second proceeding, and the court was unwilling to conclude that father’s demand for a jury trial before the first proceeding was automatically revived post-waiver when the juvenile court vacated the default judgment and set the second adjudicatory trial. Further, father’s “for the record” objection on the morning of the second trial was not a demand for a jury trial. And, regardless, it was untimely and would have caused an unnecessary delay in this time-sensitive case, interfered with the court’s administration of justice, and inconvenienced the witnesses.
The judgment was reversed and the matter was remanded for the division to consider father’s outstanding claims on appeal.