Peo in Interest of E.Q

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions
constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by
the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be
cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division.
Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion
should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.
SUMMARY
July 30, 2020
2020COA118
No. 20CA0089, Peo in Interest of E.Q. — Children’s Code —
Juvenile Court — Dependency and Neglect — Allocation of
Parental Responsibilities, Parenting Time, Child Support —
Child Support Guidelines
In this dependency and neglect proceeding, a division of the
court of appeals considers two matters of first impression in
Colorado. The division first holds that when a juvenile court orders
child support under section 19-1-104(6), C.R.S. 2019, it must
comply with article 6 of the Children’s Code, specifically section 19-
6-106, C.R.S. 2019, and use the child support guidelines set forth
in section 14-10-115, C.R.S. 2019, to compute child support. The
division further holds that, consistent with the Social Security Act,
the juvenile court may not order one parent to designate the other
parent as the representative payee of his or her social security
disability benefits. Accordingly, the child support judgment is
reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2020COA118
Court of Appeals No. 20CA0089
Prowers County District Court No. 19JV22
Honorable Stanley A. Brinkley, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Appellee,
In the Interest of E.Q. and J.Q., Children,
and Concerning R.Q.,
Appellant,
and
J.Q.,
Appellee.
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
Division IV
Opinion by JUDGE FREYRE
Terry and Lipinsky, JJ., concur
Announced July 30, 2020
Scranton Specht Associates P.C., Darla Scranton Specht, Lamar, Colorado, for
Appellee
Kim R. Verhoeff, Guardian Ad Litem
Debra W. Dodd, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Berthoud, Colorado, for
Appellant
Roy Wallis, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Mesa, Arizona, for Appellee
¶1 In this dependency and neglect proceeding, R.Q. (father)
appeals the juvenile court’s judgment ordering child support in
conjunction with granting a stipulation to allocate parental
responsibilities for the children to J.Q. (mother). Although father
agrees that he has a duty to support the children, he challenges the
provisions in the order requiring him to release his social security
disability insurance (SSDI) benefits to mother and designate her as
the payee for his benefits.
¶2 To resolve father’s appeal, we must answer two questions that
have not yet been answered by Colorado’s appellate courts. First,
what standard or criteria should the juvenile court apply when
ordering child support in a dependency and neglect proceeding
under section 19-1-104(6), C.R.S. 2019? We hold that a court must
follow the provisions for determining child support set forth in
section 19-6-106, C.R.S. 2019, which, in turn, requires compliance
with the child support guidelines in section 14-10-115, C.R.S.
2019. Because the court’s order failed to address the factors set
forth in the child support guidelines, we reverse the child support
judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
1
¶3 Second, may a juvenile court order one parent to designate the
other parent as the representative payee of his or her SSDI benefits
as part of a child support order? We hold that it may not because
federal law does not permit a juvenile court to determine the
designated payee of a parent’s SSDI benefits. Therefore, we reverse
the court’s child support judgment on this basis as well.1
I. Factual Background
¶4 In April 2019, the Prowers County Department of Human
Services (Department) filed a dependency and neglect petition
concerning sixteen-year-old E.Q. and thirteen-year-old J.Q. The
petition alleged that father had sexually abused E.Q. and had
admitted to some of the abuse when mother confronted him. The
juvenile court placed the children in mother’s custody under the
protective supervision of the Department. The following month,
father was arrested and charged criminally. He remained
incarcerated throughout the remainder of the case.
¶5 The juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent and
neglected based on the parties’ stipulation. It adopted a treatment
1Those portions of the judgment not challenged on appeal remain
undisturbed.
2
plan for father. In October 2019, mother initiated a separate
proceeding to dissolve her marriage to father.
¶6 Two months later, the parties reached a stipulation concerning
parental responsibilities for the children. As pertinent here, the
stipulation provided that (1) mother would be the children’s
custodian and have sole decision-making responsibilities; and (2)
child support would be determined by the domestic relations court.
Mother also filed a motion asking the juvenile court to order father
to release his prior three months of SSDI benefits to her. Father
filed a written objection to this motion.
¶7 After hearing further argument and offers of proof from the
parties, the juvenile court issued an order adopting the parties’
stipulation and addressing mother’s motion. Finding that it had
jurisdiction to consider child support in a dependency and neglect
proceeding under section 19-1-104(6), the court ordered father to
turn over his previous three months of SSDI benefits to mother and
to restore mother as the payee of his benefits until further order of
the court. It then certified the order into the parties’ domestic
relations proceeding.
3
II. Jurisdiction and Terms of the Stipulation
¶8 Father contends that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to
issue the child support order addressing his SSDI benefits because
it had already ended the case when it approved the parties’
stipulation. He reasons that, by accepting the parties’ stipulation to
defer child support to the domestic court, the court was precluded
from entering any child support orders. We reject father’s
jurisdictional argument but conclude that the court must
reconsider the conflicting provisions regarding child support in the
order.
A. Standard of Review and Law
¶9 Whether a juvenile court has subject matter jurisdiction is a
question of law that we review de novo. In re Petition of E.R.S., 2019
COA 40, ¶ 23.
¶ 10 Subject matter jurisdiction concerns a court’s authority to
decide a particular matter. Id. at ¶ 24; see also In re Support of
E.K., 2013 COA 99, ¶ 8. Dependency and neglect proceedings are
governed by the Children’s Code. L.A.G. v. People in Interest of
A.A.G., 912 P.2d 1385, 1389 (Colo. 1996). The Children’s Code
grants a juvenile court exclusive jurisdiction over any child who is
4
dependent and neglected. § 19-1-104(1)(b). It also expressly
authorizes a juvenile court to enter an order allocating parental
responsibilities and addressing parenting time and child support
matters when it maintains jurisdiction in a case involving a child
who is dependent and neglected and no child custody action or
action for the allocation of parental responsibilities concerning the
same child is pending in a district court in this state.
§ 19-1-104(6).
¶ 11 In this case, the juvenile court had continuing jurisdiction
over the children based on their status as dependent and neglected
children. Although mother initiated a separate domestic relations
proceeding, no party asserted that a custody or parental
responsibilities action was pending in that case. Consequently, the
domestic relations proceeding did not affect the juvenile court’s
jurisdiction to determine child support.
¶ 12 Father asserts that the juvenile court was divested of
jurisdiction to issue the order because it had already granted the
stipulation and certified the matter to the domestic relations court.
However, the record shows that the court considered both requests
— mother’s motion to release father’s SSDI benefits and the parties’
5
request for the court to approve their stipulation — at the same
time. It granted both requests as part of the same written order
and later certified that order to the domestic relations court. Thus,
the juvenile court was not divested of jurisdiction to issue an order
concerning the children’s support.
B. Terms of the Stipulation
¶ 13 We next consider father’s contention that the juvenile court
was precluded from considering mother’s request to release his
SSDI benefits by the terms of the parties’ stipulation. We reject
father’s contention that the terms of the stipulation restricted the
court’s authority to consider mother’s request. As previously
discussed, the court considered both requests simultaneously.
Moreover, parties may not preclude or limit the court’s authority
concerning child support. In re Marriage of Miller, 790 P.2d 890,
892-93 (Colo. App. 1990).
¶ 14 Nevertheless, we agree that the order contains conflicting
provisions that cannot be reconciled. The court addressed the
children’s support by ordering father to release his SSDI benefits
while at the same time adopting the parties’ stipulation that child
support would be addressed through the domestic relations case.
6
Because we are unable to reconcile these provisions, we reverse the
judgment and remand the case for the court to reconsider whether
child support will be determined in the dependency and neglect
case or the domestic relations case. See In re Marriage of Rozzi, 190
P.3d 815, 822 (Colo. App. 2008) (recognizing that the court’s order
must contain findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficiently
explicit to give an appellate court a clear understanding of the basis
of its order); cf. People in Interest of D.C-M.S., 111 P.3d 559, 562
(Colo. App. 2005) (rejecting a contention that a judgment had to be
reversed when the trial court’s findings were neither inconsistent
nor contradictory).
III. The UDMA and the Social Security Act
¶ 15 Because they will arise on remand, we address father’s
remaining contentions. He contends that the juvenile court erred
by (1) failing to apply the child support provisions of the Uniform
Dissolution of Marriage Act (UDMA); and (2) requiring him to name
mother the payee of his SSDI benefits in violation of the Social
Security Act (SSA). We agree with both contentions.
7
A. Standard of Review and Statutory Interpretation
¶ 16 We review de novo whether the juvenile court applied the
correct legal standard. People in Interest of I.J.O., 2019 COA 151,
¶ 6. We also review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.
People in Interest of L.M., 2018 CO 34, ¶ 13.
¶ 17 In construing a statute, we look at the entire statutory scheme
“in order to give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of
its parts, and we apply words and phrases in accordance with their
plain and ordinary meanings.” Id. (quoting UMB Bank, N.A. v.
Landmark Towers Ass’n, 2017 CO 107, ¶ 22). When construing
statutes related to the same subject matter, we aim to avoid a
statutory interpretation that would render certain words or
provisions superfluous or ineffective. Id. Instead, we adopt an
interpretation that achieves consistency across a comprehensive
statutory scheme. Id.B. Determination of Child Support
1. Legal Framework
¶ 18 Section 19-1-104(6) specifically authorizes a juvenile court
that retains jurisdiction in a dependency and neglect case to “enter
an order allocating parental responsibilities and addressing
8
parenting time and child support matters.” It also permits the
court to do so without requiring a party to initiate a separate
domestic relations proceeding under the UDMA or a support
proceeding under article 6 of the Children’s Code. People in Interest
of E.M., 2016 COA 38M, ¶ 23, aff’d on other grounds, 2018 CO 34.
However, the statute provides no guidance as to the standard or
criteria the juvenile court should apply when determining child
support. Therefore, we must look to other provisions of the
Children’s Code. See People in Interest of H.K.W., 2017 COA 70,
¶¶ 14-16 (looking to the UDMA when the Children’s Code did not
contain a provision governing conducting an in camera interview
with a child); see also People in Interest of S.E.G., 934 P.2d 920, 921
(Colo. App. 1997) (recognizing that, when the Children’s Code did
not specify the criteria to be applied in entering permanent
parenting time orders in a parentage action, it was appropriate to
look to and apply the statute governing temporary orders).
¶ 19 In addition to having jurisdiction over a child who is
dependent and neglected, the juvenile court has exclusive
jurisdiction under article 6 of the Children’s Code to issue orders to
9
determine parentage and to compel a parent to support a child.
§ 19-1-104(1)(e)-(f).
¶ 20 A division of this court considered whether a juvenile court in
a nonpaternity, dependency and neglect proceeding could determine
a child’s paternity (or parentage) in People in Interest of J.G.C., 2013
COA 171, ¶ 10. The division held that it could, but that the
juvenile court was required to follow the procedures outlined in the
Uniform Parentage Act. Id. at ¶ 11.
¶ 21 We perceive no reason to treat the juvenile court’s authority to
address child support matters any differently. Article 6 authorizes
the juvenile court to enter an order directing a parent or other
legally responsible person to support a child or children.
§§ 19-6-101(1)(a), 19-6-104(1), C.R.S. 2019. It also permits the
court to enter a child support order for a time period that preceded
the entry of the support order. § 19-6-104(1).
¶ 22 The court may order child support as is reasonable under the
circumstances, taking into consideration the factors under section
19-4-116(6), C.R.S. 2019. § 19-6-104(1). Section 19-4-116(6), in
turn, requires the court to consider all relevant facts in determining
child support, including the following:
10
 the child’s needs;
 the standard of living and circumstances of the parents;
 the relative financial means of the parents;
 the earning ability of the parents;
 the child’s need and capacity for education, including higher
education;
 the child’s age;
 the child’s financial resources and earning ability;
 the responsibility of the parents for the support of others;
 the value of services contributed by the parent with whom the
child resides most of the time;
 the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the
parents been married; and
 the child support guidelines, as set forth in section 14-10-115
of the UDMA.
¶ 23 Furthermore, section 19-6-106 expressly requires the juvenile
court to follow the provisions of section 14-10-115 when
determining a child support obligation under article 6. And section
14-10-115 of the UDMA contains a reciprocal provision addressing
11
its applicability to support proceedings under the Children’s Code.
It provides that the child support guidelines apply to all child
support obligations that are established or modified as part of any
proceeding, including article 6 of the Children’s Code. § 14-10-
115(1)(c).
¶ 24 Accordingly, we hold that when the juvenile court determines
child support in a dependency and neglect proceeding, it must
follow the provisions for establishing child support orders under
article 6 of the Children’s Code.
2. Application
¶ 25 In determining that father should be required to support the
children by releasing his SSDI benefits to mother, the court
identified three factors. First, father had regularly used his $650
monthly benefit to support the children until October 2019.
Second, although mother was employed, she struggled to support
the children without access to father’s SSDI benefits. Third, father
did not need this benefit for support because he was incarcerated.
¶ 26 However, the court did not consider relevant facts related to
the children’s needs or the children’s financial resources and
earning abilities. And, significantly, the court did not consider the
12
child support guidelines under section 14-10-115. Therefore, we
reverse the portion of the order requiring father to release his SSDI
benefits to mother and to restore mother as the payee of the
benefits.
C. Violation of the SSA
1. Necessity of Review and Preservation
¶ 27 Father contends that the juvenile court’s order requiring him
to name mother as the payee of his SSDI benefits violates federal
law. He concedes that he did not raise this legal issue in the
juvenile court. Nonetheless, it may be appropriate to consider
questions of pre-emption of federal law for the first time on appeal.
See Fuentes-Espinoza v. People, 2017 CO 98, ¶¶ 1, 19 (choosing to
address a pre-emption question that the division of the court of
appeals had determined was unpreserved); see also Town of
Carbondale v. GSS Props., LLC, 169 P.3d 675, 682-83 (Colo. 2007)
(recognizing that a pre-emption defense may be waivable when it
involves the law to be applied by the court, but that pre-emption
involving federal law may raise a separate set of issues, including,
for example, the application of the Federal Supremacy Clause). For
these reasons, we will review father’s argument.
13
2. Standard of Review and the SSA
¶ 28 We review de novo whether the provision of the order requiring
father to designate mother as the payee of his SSDI benefits
conflicts with the SSA and thereby violates the Supremacy Clause
of the United States Constitution. See In re Marriage of Anderson,
252 P.3d 490, 493 (Colo. App. 2010); see also People in Interest of
C.Z., 2015 COA 87, ¶ 10.
¶ 29 When a person becomes disabled, he or she may receive SSDI
benefits under the SSA. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1) (2018); In re Marriage
of Anthony-Guillar, 207 P.3d 934, 938 (Colo. App. 2009). In some
cases, SSDI benefits are paid directly to the beneficiary. In re
Guardianship of Smith, 17 A.3d 136, 140 (Me. 2011). In other
cases, payments can be made to a duly certified fiduciary — known
as a representative payee — for the beneficiary’s use and benefit.
Id.¶ 30 SSDI benefits constitute income for child support purposes.
§ 14-10-115(5)(a)(I)(P); see also 42 U.S.C. § 659(a) (2018). And the
federal government has consented to SSDI benefits being withheld,
garnished, or subjected to another similar proceeding to enforce the
14
legal obligation of the individual to provide child support. 42 U.S.C.
§ 659(a).
¶ 31 However, no provision of the SSA permits a state court to
determine who should serve as the representative payee. Rather,
the SSA tasks the Commissioner of Social Security with
investigating and determining whether an individual receiving SSDI
benefits should have a representative payee and, if so, who should
serve as the payee. State in Interest of W.B., 755 So. 2d 281, 282
(La. Ct. App. 1999); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(j)(1)(A), (2)(A)(i)-(ii)
(2018); 20 C.F.R. § 416.610 (2019) (reciting the principles and
procedures that the administration follows in determining whether
to make representative payment and in selecting a representative
payee). The individual who receives the benefit may also designate
an individual as a representative payee. 42 U.S.C. § 405(j)(1)(C)(i).
But this occurs when the administration determines that payment
will be made to a representative payee. 20 C.F.R. § 416.618(a)(2)
(2019).
¶ 32 Once appointed, representative payees are subject to detailed
regulations governing the use of SSDI benefits. Wash. State Dep’t of
Soc. & Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 U.S.
15371, 376 (2003); see also Smith, 17 A.3d at 140; 20 C.F.R.
§§ 416.635, 416.640, 416.645 (2019). A representative payee is
required to use the benefit payments solely for the beneficiary’s use
and benefit in a manner and for the purposes that the
representative payee determines to be in the beneficiary’s best
interests. 20 C.F.R. § 404.2035(a) (2019); see also In re Ryan W.,
76 A.3d 1049, 1053 (Md. 2013). And payees must abide by “a
system of accountability monitoring” under which they are
forbidden from “misus[ing]” an individual’s benefit payments in any
way and must submit a report at least once per year with respect to
the use of such payments. See Smith, 17 A.3d at 140 (quoting 42
U.S.C. § 405(j)(3)(A), (7)(A)); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.625, 416.665
(2019).
¶ 33 Taken together, these provisions establish that a juvenile court
lacks the authority to determine who a parent must designate as
the representative payee for his or her SSDI benefits. See W.B., 755
So. 2d at 282 (recognizing that a request to change the
representative payee is a question for the Social Security
Administration with possible review by the federal courts); see also
Ryan W., 76 A.3d at 1061 (concluding that the juvenile court did
16
not have authority under Maryland law to monitor the allocation of
social security benefits by a representative payee).
¶ 34 Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the order requiring father
to designate mother as the representative payee for his SSDI
benefits.
IV. Conclusion
¶ 35 The child support portion of the judgment is reversed, and the
case is remanded to the juvenile court. On remand, the juvenile
court must vacate the provision of the order requiring father to
designate mother as the representative payee of his SSDI benefits.
The court must also either redetermine child support, based on the
criteria under sections 14-10-115 and 19-4-116(6), or certify the
issue into the parties’ domestic relations case.
JUDGE TERRY and JUDGE LIPINSKY concur.
17