Dependency and Neglect Proceeding—Attorney–Client Privilege—Confidentiality of Communications—Guardian ad Litem—Social Worker—Witnesses.
The People sought review of the court of appeals’ judgment affirming two in limine evidentiary rulings of the district court in a prosecution for sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust in People v. Gabriesheski, 205 P.3d 441 (Colo. App. 2008). Following the district court’s exclusion of testimony concerning the recantation of the defendant’s stepdaughter, the alleged child-sexual-assault victim, the prosecutor conceded her inability to go forward, and the case was dismissed. The court of appeals concluded that section 16- 12-102(1), C.R.S. (2010), gave it jurisdiction to entertain the People’s appeal, but it affirmed both of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings.
With regard to the exclusion of testimony by the guardian ad litem appointed in a parallel dependency and neglect proceeding, the court of appeals held that the child’s communications with the guardian fell within the attorney-client privilege, as set out at section 13-90-107(1)(b), C.R.S. (2010). With regard to the exclusion of testimony by a social worker also involved in the dependency and neglect proceeding, the court found her to be both a professional who could not be examined in a criminal case without the consent of the parent-respondent, as dictated by section 19-3-207, C.R.S. (2010), and a licensed professional who could not be examined without the consent of her client, according to section 13-90-107(1)(g), C.R.S. (2010).
The Colorado Supreme Court affirms in part and reverses in part, holding that the court of appeals did have jurisdiction to entertain the People’s appeal, but disapproved of its conclusions with regard to both of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. The supreme court finds that because a child who is the subject of a dependency and neglect proceeding is not the client of a court-appointed guardian ad litem, neither the statutory attorney-client privilege nor ethical rules governing an attorney’s obligations of confidentiality to a client strictly apply to communications by the child. Further, the supreme court finds that because the trial court apparently understood section 19-3-207 to bar the examination of the social worker in the defendant’s criminal case as long as she qualified as a professional involved in the dependency and neglect proceeding, it failed to make sufficient findings to satisfy the additional statutory requirement that the statements at issue be ones made in compliance with court treatment orders, or to demonstrate the applicability of section 13-90-107, which is limited by its own terms to communications made by a client in the course of professional employment or psychotherapy.
Guardians ad Litem and the Attorney-Client Privilege: The Aftermath of the Gabriesheski Decision
About CBA-CLE Legal Connection
CBA CLE Legal Connection is published by Colorado Bar Association CLE (also known as CLE in Colorado, Inc.). It is focused on delivering timely resources, updates and continuing legal education to … [Read More...]
Featured Homestudy: Business Law Institute
Law Practice Tip of the Week
Solo Tip Tuesday: Keep Track of Requests You've Made of Others in a Folder Called @WFF
This could be my all-time favorite tip. We often use email to ask someone to send us something, or check on something and get back to us, etc. Sending the email is the easy part. The hard part is keeping track of what you asked for and when, and then remembering to follow up when the person doesn’t get back to you. Click here to read more.
K2D was a business that required new capital, and it contracted with CapitalValue Advisors for a number of different tasks. CapitalValue entered into an engagement agreement whereby it agreed to either help sell K2D (either a majority or minority interest) or to assist K2D in obtaining debt financing. The rub is that CapitalValue does not have a real estate broker license or a securities license. That is required in order to market the sale of K2D as an entity, as one asset of the company was a leasehold interest in property, or to market its stock under state and federal securities laws.
Colorado Supreme Court: No Injury Sufficient to Establish Taxpayer Standing for “Colorado Day of Prayer” Suit
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hickenlooper, Governor of Colorado v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. on Monday, November 24, 2014.
Colorado Court of Appeals: Adverse Possession Requires Good Faith Belief of Ownership of Property for 18 Years or More
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Gutierrez-Vite on Thursday, November 20, 2014.