Peo in Interest of AA

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 23, 2025
• Docket: 25CA0730
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

25CA0730 Peo in Interest of AA 10-23-2025

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 25CA0730 Larimer County District Court No. 24JV30149 Honorable Laurie K. Dean, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Appellee,

In the Interest of A.A. and C.A., Children-Appellants,

and Concerning S.A.,

Appellant.

APPEALS DISMISSED

Division II Opinion by JUDGE HAWTHORNE* Fox and Meirink, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced October 23, 2025

William G. Ressue, County Attorney, Nicole J. Liley, Assistant County Attorney, Fort Collins, Colorado, for Appellee

Jenna L. Mazzucca, Counsel for Youth, Salida, Colorado for A.A. and C.A.

Genevieve Manco, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant

*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2025. ¶1 S.A. (mother) appeals a magistrate’s judgment adjudicating

A.A. and C.A. (the children) dependent and neglected and the

juvenile court’s dispositional order approving a treatment plan for

her. The children, through their Counsel for Youth, also appeal the

adjudication judgment. For the reasons explained below, we

dismiss mother’s and the children’s appeals.

I. Background

¶2 In November 2024, the Larimer County Department of Human

Services filed a neglected or dependent children petition, alleging,

among other things, that the children were homeless and mother

was using illicit substances. Mother denied the petition’s

allegations and requested a bench trial before a magistrate.

¶3 In February 2025, the magistrate held an adjudicatory hearing

and adjudicated the children dependent and neglected. Mother

requested that a juvenile court judge preside over the dispositional

hearing.

¶4 The juvenile court held the dispositional hearing in April 2025.

After hearing the evidence, the court entered a written dispositional

order adopting a treatment plan for mother.

1 II. Adjudication Judgment

¶5 Because mother and the children directly appealed the

magistrate’s adjudication judgment to this court, without first

seeking review in the juvenile court, we lack jurisdiction and

dismiss the adjudication appeals.

¶6 In a dependency or neglect case heard by a magistrate, the

parties are bound by the magistrate’s findings and

recommendations, subject to a request for juvenile court review.

§ 19-1-108(3)(a.5), C.R.S. 2025; see also People in Interest of

L.B-H-P., 2021 COA 5, ¶ 9. A request for such review must be filed

within seven days for Article 3 dependency and neglect proceedings

after the parties receive notice of the magistrate’s ruling.

§ 19-1-108(5.5). “A petition for review is a prerequisite before an

appeal may be filed with” the court of appeals. Id. If a party

appeals a magistrate’s judgment to the court of appeals without

first filing a petition for review, this court lacks jurisdiction to

review the magistrate’s judgment and must dismiss the appeal. See

In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning J.H., 2021 COA 94, ¶ 14

(dismissing an appeal of a parentage adjudication because the

2 appealing party did not file a petition for review with the district

court).

¶7 On appeal, neither mother nor the children acknowledge that

a magistrate entered the adjudication judgment. But the record

shows that a magistrate presided over the adjudication hearing and

entered a written ruling adjudicating the children dependent and

neglected. Notably, the magistrate’s written ruling specifically

provided notice to the parties that, because the judgment had been

entered by a magistrate, they had seven days to file a petition for

review under section 19-1-108(5.5). Yet, neither mother nor the

children petitioned the juvenile court for review. Nor do they

provide any basis on appeal as to why we can consider their

appeals absent a petition for review. See J.H., ¶ 15 (rejecting the

parent’s assertion that the “unique circumstances exception”

should apply to allow the court of appeals to consider the parent’s

appeal).

¶8 We therefore dismiss mother’s and the children’s appeals of

the adjudication judgment because we lack jurisdiction to consider

them.

3 III. Dispositional Order

¶9 Mother also challenges the juvenile court’s order adopting a

treatment plan for her. As explained below, because an initial

dispositional order, by itself, is not a final and appealable order, we

also dismiss mother’s appeal of the dispositional order.

¶ 10 Section 19-1-109(2)(c), C.R.S. 2025, states that “[a]n order

decreeing a child to be neglected or dependent shall be a final and

appealable order after the entry of the disposition pursuant to

section 19-3-508[, C.R.S. 2025].” In People in Interest of H.T., 2019

COA 72, ¶ 22, a division of this court construed the language in

section 19-1-109(2)(c) to “provide that adjudicatory orders are final

and appealable but dispositional orders, by themselves, are not.”

And in People in Interest of M.W., 2022 COA 72, ¶ 27, another

division clarified that, although dispositional orders by themselves

are not appealable, a party may “appeal the content of the initial

dispositional order, including provisions of the treatment plan,

simultaneously with an appeal of an adjudicatory order.”

¶ 11 Applying these authorities, we conclude that mother cannot

appeal the dispositional order because she has not properly

appealed the adjudication judgment. Although she attempted to

4 appeal the dispositional order simultaneously with the adjudication

judgment, mother did not file a petition for review under section

19-1-108 (3)(a.5). So we lack jurisdiction to consider the

adjudication judgment appeal and must dismiss it. And without

the adjudication appeal, mother cannot appeal the initial

dispositional order. See H.T., ¶ 22; cf. M.W., ¶ 30 (considering the

parent’s appeal of “the initial dispositional order — including the

contents of [his] treatment plan” — because the parent

simultaneously appealed both the adjudication judgment and the

initial dispositional order).

¶ 12 We must therefore dismiss mother’s appeal of the dispositional

order. See H.T., ¶ 28.

IV. Disposition

¶ 13 The appeals are dismissed.

JUDGE FOX and JUDGE MEIRINK concur.