Court Rulings

Dependency and Neglect—Allocation of Parental Responsibilities—Subject Matter Jurisdiction—Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The Mesa County Department of Human Services (Department) assumed temporary custody of 8-year-old M.S. and initiated a dependency and neglect proceeding. Mother lived in Texas. The court, by stipulation, adjudicated M.S. dependent or neglected. The Department then moved for a permanent allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) for M.S. to mother. The magistrate determined it was in M.S.'s best interests to be placed with mother and issued an order granting permanent APR to mother. Father appealed, and a Court of Appeals' division dismissed for failure to obtain district court review. Father then filed a petition for district court review, which was denied, and he appealed again. Initially, the Court of Appeals addressed the Department's argument that the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) does not apply to dependency and neglect proceedings once a child has been adjudicated dependent and neglected. The UCCJEA does not exempt any stage of a dependency and neglect proceeding from its purview. The Court, sua sponte, concluded that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to issue the permanent APR order. Under the UCCJEA, the court that makes an initial custody determination generally retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. As a result, a Colorado court, absent temporary emergency jurisdiction, may only modify a custody order issued by an out-of-state court under limited circumstances. Here, a California court had issued a custody order before the initiation of the dependency and neglect proceeding. The magistrate did not confer with the California court that issued the custody order or make a determination as to whether the California court had lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. Consequently, the magistrate failed to acquire jurisdiction under the UCCJEA before issuing t

Real Property—Residential—Commercial—Ad Valorem Taxes—Burden of Proof. James and Mary Ellen O'Neil purchased the subject property and built a log house on it for their use as a vacation home and as an inheritance for their sons. The house was initially classified for tax purposes as residential. After the O'Neils listed the property as available for short-term, overnight rental, the Conejos County Assessor (Assessor) reclassified the property, for ad valorem tax purposes, from residential to commercial. The O'Neils filed a petition for abatement with the Conejos County Board of Commissioners (County), which was denied, and then appealed to the Board of Assessment Appeals (Board), which overturned the Assessor's action and returned the property's classification to residential for the relevant years. On appeal, the County contended that the Board improperly classified the O'Neils' property as residential. The County asserted as a procedural error that that the Board failed to apply the presumption in favor of the Assessor's property classification. The Board's order demonstrated that it implicitly applied the presumption in favor of the County, and the O'Neils met their burden of proof to overcome that presumption. On the merits, the Board determined that the proper classification of the property was "residential" because its "predominant and actual use was as a second home." The Board's determination had a reasonable basis in law and was supported by substantial evidence in the record. The order was affirmed.

In this case and two companion cases, the Supreme Court considered multiple issues that lie at the intersection of proportionality review and habitual criminal punishment. Consistent with Wells-Yates v. People, the lead case, the Court held that, in determining the gravity or seriousness of triggering and predicate offenses during an abbreviated proportionality review, the court should consider any relevant legislative amendments enacted after the dates of those offenses, even if the amendments do not apply retroactively. Although the Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion, it erred in failing to recognize that, rather than considering relevant prospective legislative amendments enacted after the dates of the triggering and predicate offenses, the trial court actually applied those amendments retroactively. Therefore, its judgment was reversed. And, because additional factual determinations are necessary to properly address defendant's proportionality challenge, the case was remanded with instructions to return it to the trial court for a new proportionality review.

<bold>Workers' Compensation — Causation — fibromyalgia — doctor's opinion</bold> <bold>testimony</bold> <block_quote> The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that competent evidence was presented to support the Industrial Commission's findings of fact with regard to the cause of plaintiff-employee's fibromyalgia based solely on the opinion testimony of one doctor.</block_quote>

<bold>Workers' Compensation — findings of fact — causation —</bold> <bold>speculation — reasonable degree of medical certainty</bold> <block_quote> The Industrial Commission's findings of fact in a workers' compensation case were not supported by competent evidence establishing causation between an employment-related injury and the development of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), because: (1) although expert testimony as to the possible cause of a medical condition is admissible if helpful to the jury, it is insufficient to prove causation when there is additional evidence or testimony showing the expert's opinion to be a guess or mere speculation; (2) a review of the expert testimony revealed that neither of plaintiff employee's physicians could establish with any degree of medical certainty the required causal connection between plaintiff's accident and her DVT; and (3) evidence of plaintiff's age and medical history of hypertension, breast tumors, leg<page_number>Page 229</page_number> cramps, and estrogen use suggested other potential causes of plaintiff's DVT.</block_quote>