April 28, 2017

Chief Justice Directives Regarding Oaths of Office and Sensitive Records Amended

The Colorado State Judicial Branch released updates to two of the Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Directives.

Chief Justice 85-25, “Oaths of Office for Judges and Magistrates,” was amended effective April 7, 2017. The changes to CJD 85-25 amended outdated language, added language regarding magistrates, and specified that the of oaths of magistrates are on file with the district administrator.

CJD 16-03, “Retention, Transmission, and Viewing of Sensitive Records,” was also amended effective April 7, 2017. CJD 16-03 was amended to change “designation of record” to “certificate of filing of record” in § 2.01(b) in order to more accurately reflect the location in which the appeals clerks insert language in bold that tells the appellate court Sensitive Records exist in the trial record but are not being transmitted as part of the record.

Click here for CJD 85-25, click here for CJD 16-03, and click here for all the Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Directives.

CJD 05-03 Dealing with Court Reporters and Recording Services Amended

On Thursday, March 16, 2017, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced that Chief Justice Directive 05-03, “Management Plan for Court Reporting and Recording Services,” was amended by the Colorado Supreme Court, effective March 14, 2017.

The changes to CJD 05-03 update § V.B.3.a, which addresses state-paid transcripts. The changes clarify that the Office of the Child’s Representative and its attorneys are each entitled to state-paid transcripts, as well as the Office of the Alternative Defense and its attorneys. The changes also add the Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel to the list of offices entitled to state-paid transcripts.

For the entirety of CJD 05-03, click here. For all of the Colorado Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Directives, click here.

Income Eligibility Guidelines Amended in Several Chief Justice Directives

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017, the Colorado State Judicial Branch released updates to several Chief Justice Directives to reflect changes in the income eligibilitly guidelines. The amended Chief Justice Directives are listed here:

  • CJD 16-02, “Court Appointments Through the Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel,” Attachment B amended.
  • CJD 14-01, “Appointment of State-Funded Counsel in Juvenile Delinquency Cases,” Attachment B amended.
  • CJD 04-06, “Court Appointments Through the Office of the Child’s Representative,” Attachment A amended.
  • CJD 04-05, “Appointment and Payment Procedures for Court-appointed Counsel, Guardians ad litem, Child and Family Investigators, and Court Visitors paid by the Judicial Department in proceedings under Titles 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 (special respondents in dependency and neglect only), 22, 25.5, and 27, C.R.S.,” Attachment A amended.
  • CJD 04-04, “Appointment of State-Funded Counsel in Criminal Cases and For Contempt of Court,” Attachment B amended.

For all of the Colorado Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Directives, click here.

CJD 05-01, “Directive Concerning Access to Court Records,” Amended by Colorado Supreme Court

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court adopted changes to Chief Justice Directive 05-01, “Directive Concerning Access to Court Records.” The changes to this Chief Justice Directive were proposed by the Public Access Committee, and they replace previous public access policies. The changes include clarification of wording that was causing confusion, a mandate that court records involving a child victim be redacted before being released to the public, inclusion of applications for public defenders, court-appointed counsel, or guardians ad litem as not accessible to the public, and changes to Appendix C for consistency purposes. The full Chief Justice Directive is available here.

CJD 16-03 Added Regarding Retention, Viewing, and Transmission of Sensitive Records

On Friday, September 30, 2016, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the adoption of a new Chief Justice Directive. CJD 16-03, “Retention, Transmission, and Viewing of Sensitive Records,” was adopted on September 22, 2016.

This directive sets forth the judicial department’s policy governing the retention, transmission, and viewing of sexually exploitative material, visual depictions involving the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and child pornography, collectively a “sensitive record.”  Among other things, the CJD prohibits anyone from uploading a sensitive record into an electronic case file, uploading or downloading a sensitive record onto an electronic device connected to the Judicial Department’s network, or using a Judicial Department computer or other electronic device to view or display a sensitive record.  The CJD is applicable to the courts, court personnel, a party, an attorney for a party, or any other person.

To read the Chief Justice Directive, click here.

Chief Justice Directive 95-01 Regarding Authority of Chief Judges Amended

On Friday, August 26, 2016, the Colorado State Judicial Branch released an amended version of Chief Justice Directive 95-01, “Authority and Responsibility of Chief Judges,” effective August 24, 2016. The changes to the Chief Justice Directive were minor; section 3 of the Directive was amended to clarify the Chief Justice’s authority to designate a presiding county court judge in each county with more than one county court judge. Click here to read the directive; click here for all of the Colorado Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Directives.

CJD 16-02 and CJD 04-05 Regarding Court Appointed Counsel Amended Effective July 1, 2016

On Thursday, July 7, 2016, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the amendments of two Chief Justice Directives, both effective July 1, 2016. Chief Justice Directive 16-02, “Court Appointments Through the Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel,” was amended to include an income eligibility guideline chart as Attachment B for parents who request appointment of respondent parents’ counsel based on indigency. The amendments to CJD 16-02 also include guidelines on the procedures for determination of indigency, and criteria for establishing indigency.

CJD 04-05, “Appointment and Payment Procedures for Court-appointed Counsel, Guardians ad litem, Child and Family Investigators, and Court Visitors paid by the Judicial Department in proceedings under Titles 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 (special respondents in dependency and neglect only), 22, 25.5, and 27, C.R.S.,” was amended to incorporate changes to the structure of the Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel. On July 1, 2016, pursuant to legislation, the Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel (ORPC) assumed responsibility for the contracts and payment for the attorneys with whom the ORPC contracts.  The State Court Administrator’s Office no longer has authority over RPC appointments. The revisions to the directive address payment procedures and remove provisions that dealt with policy and procedural matters related to respondent parent representation. Additionally, non-substantive formatting and organizational changes were made to the Directive.

For all of the Colorado Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Directives, click here.

CJDs Regarding Wiretapping and Access to Court Records Amended

Two of the Colorado Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Directives were amended last week. CJD 85-02, regarding wiretap reports, was updated on March 31, 2016, to include the location of the electronic wiretap form on the United States Court website, provide updated information for submission to the U.S. courts, and to clarify that all applications and extensions are to be reported whether granted or denied.

CJD 05-01, regarding access to court records, was revised on April 1, 2016, based on the review of a subcommittee of Public Access Committee members. The revisions to CJD 05-01 were substantial. A summary of the most substantial changes is reprinted here:

Section 3.00: General Provisions
• Section 3.00 was expanded to include additional definitions of common terms used in this policy.
• Section 3.01 defines the Department’s Case Management System (CMS) as all Department information systems designed to capture, monitor, and track court and probation content.
• Section 3.02 defines the role of the State Court Administrator, Clerks of Court, and Chief Probation Officers as custodians of court records. This Section also states that Clerks of Court are responsible for assigning document or case security levels.
• Section 3.03 provides the definition of “court record” for purposes of this policy. Section 3.03(a)(2) was added to clarify that any records related to a defendant or probationer that are created, collected, received, and maintained by a probation department are court records.

Section 4.40: Access to Aggregate and Compiled Data from Court Records
• Section 4.40(a)(2)(ii) was added to allow (but not require) requests for compiled or aggregate data specific to one judicial district to be submitted to, prepared by, and released from that judicial district. Data requests specific to one judicial district may also be submitted to, prepared by, and released from SCAO.
• Section 4.40(a)(4) was added to clarify that all reports generated from the Department’s CMS constitute compiled or aggregate data. If a request is made to release these reports outside of the Department, all provisions of CJD 05-01 must be met. This includes all reports created through COGNOS, and management reports generated through ICON/Eclipse/JPOD, etc.
• Section 4.40(f)(4) was added to recognize the need of interagency teams/Best Practice Teams to share information within the team that includes personally identifiable data, and to require the use of a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the protection and use of data.

Section 4.60: Court Records Excluded from Public Access
• Section 4.60(b)(7) was amended to add Probate protected proceedings case types to those case classes/types that are not accessible to the public unless the court orders otherwise.
• Section 4.60(d) was amended to alphabetically list records that are not accessible to the public without a court order.
• Additional records were added to the list, including: (1) Audio/Video recordings collected, received, and maintained by the Court; (7) Domestic Relations Memoranda of Understanding, and Qualified Domestic Relations Orders; (19) Medical marijuana registry application or card; (20) Motion for Informa Pauperis; and (21) National Crime Information Center (NCIC) or Colorado Crime Information Center (CCIC) printed reports.
• Criminal history records checks were removed from this list.
• Section 4.60(e)(6) was amended to clarify that Social Security Numbers (SSNs), including partial SSNs, are to be redacted from pleadings or documents prior to being released.
• Section 4.60(e)(7) was added and requires that tax identification numbers be redacted from pleadings or documents prior to being released.

Section 5.00: Accessing Court Records
• Section 5.00 was amended to align more closely with the requirements outlined in P.A.I.R.R. 2 (Public Access to Administrative Records of the Judicial Branch) regarding the procedure to access records.
• Section 5.00(d) was amended to clarify that if court records cannot be provided upon request, the custodian will provide court records within three business days. If, due to extenuating circumstances, the custodian cannot provide records within three business days, the custodian may have an additional seven business days to respond.
• Sections 5.00 (d)(1-5) provides definitions of the extenuating circumstances under which the custodian may provide court records within the seven business day extension.

Addendum C: Data Request for Purposes or Research, Including Personally Identifiable Data, Pursuant to Section 4.40(f) was created to be used with researchers that request compiled data that includes personally identifiable data components.

Although e-filing specifications are not defined in CJD 05-01, this policy does address “court records subject to remote access” (Section 4.20). As a result, the Public Access Committee also approved case information for Probate trust and estate case types to be opened via remote access in ICCES. ITS requires sufficient time to make necessary updates to ICCES, therefore, this change will occur on or before 9/1/2016. For probate trust and estate cases filed prior to 9/1/16, the security level of public documents filed in these cases will be “protected”; after 9/1/16, only certain public documents (to be specified by the Clerks of Court) will be auto-protected.

For all of the Colorado Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Directives, click here.

New CJD 16-01 Repeals and Replaces CJD 04-03

Effective January 1, 2016, the Chief Justice Nancy Rice of the Colorado Supreme Court adopted Chief Justice Directive 16-01, “Establishment of Statewide Probation Priorities,” to replace and repeal CJD 04-03. The Chief Justice Directive updates priority lists for offender supervision for investigation, supervision, and probation performance review. The goal of the new priorities is to maximize public safety by directing offender supervision resources to the highest risk offenders.

Click here to read CJD 16-01. Click here for all of the Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Directives.

Three Chief Justice Directives Related to Family Law Amended

On Friday, January 1, 2016, three amended Chief Justice Directives were issued by the Colorado Supreme Court: CJD 04-06, regarding court appointments through the Office of the Child’s Representative (OCR), CJD 04-05, regarding payment of court-appointed attorney child representatives, and CJD 04-08, regarding court appointment of Child and Family Investigators (CFIs).

The changes to CJD 04-05 are due to legislation passed in 2015. HB 15-1153 transferred oversight of state-paid attorney CFIs from the Office of the Child’s Representative to the Office of the State Court Administrator, and CJD 04-05 was amended to reflect this change. CJD 04-06 was also amended to eliminate appointments of state-paid CFIs from the Office of the Child’s Representative, and to clarify GAL appointments in dependency and neglect cases, establish standards for GALs in delinquency proceedings and other cases, and require attorneys to submit a certificate of compliance with the CJD’s requirements to the OCR for all case types.

The changes to CJD 04-08 were significant. Judges who routinely appoint CFIs are encouraged to request a redline of the changes, given the volume of changes. State Judicial summarized some of the changes below:

• Regarding CFI oversight, SCAO will oversee all CFI appointments, with all state pay CFI appointments governed by CJD 04-05. OCR will have no involvement in CFI oversight or payment.
• Regarding expansion of CFI appointments, courts may expand a CFI appointment to a parental responsibility evaluation for an otherwise qualified appointee only upon written stipulation of the parties, approved by the court.
• Regarding the presumptive fee cap in private pay CFI cases, the cap increased from $2,000 to $2,750. This amount is a cap, not a flat fee.
• Regarding CFI complaints, complaints must be filed no later than one year following termination of the CFI appointment. No investigation will occur for complaints involving individuals not listed on the Statewide Roster. Regarding founded complaints, District Administrators will provide the complaint, investigation report and CFI report to regulatory agencies entitled to notice of the founded complaint, such as DORA and OARC, redacting the names, addresses and birthdates of the children and collateral witnesses, and with the redacted documents marked, “Confidential pursuant to CJD 04-08.” No complaint is required for a district to find a CFI no longer suitable for appointment and to remove the CFI from the district’s eligibility roster. When this occurs, the district must notify the SCAO of the reason for removal and SCAO will determine whether to remove the CFI from the Statewide Roster.
• Regarding Standard 2, CFIs must file JDF 1338, the Mandatory Disclosure form, to disclose the existence or nonexistence of a prior or current relationship.
• Regarding Standard 11, the “timely” filing of a report when the court has not specified a due date is defined as “at least 35 days before the trial or hearing.” Reports should not recite all information obtained during the investigation, but rather summarize legally relevant information.
• Regarding Standard 12, requests for CFI files must be written. Standard 12 now contains a default time frame for provision of the CFI file and adds a permissible rate for file duplication or scanning.
• Regarding Standard 13, CFIs shall not perform or require drug, alcohol, polygraph or other testing, inspection or evaluation unless specifically ordered by the court. Standard 13 now permits a qualified CFI to conduct drug and alcohol evaluation in addition to other CFI duties when specifically ordered. CFIs may conduct domestic violence screening if competent to do so.

For all of the Chief Justice Directives, click here.

CJD 11-02, Pilot Project Rules, Repealed and Reenacted by Colorado Supreme Court

On Monday, November 23, 2015, the Colorado Supreme Court issued repealed and amended Chief Justice Directive 11-02, “Adopting Pilot Rules for Certain District Court Civil Cases.” The amendments affect cases filed between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2015. For all cases filed on or after July 1, 2015, the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure have been amended to included provisions of the pilot project rules.

For the amended version of CJD 11-02, click here. For all of the Colorado Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Directives, click here.

CJD 15-01, CJD 11-02 and CJD 85-27 Repealed by Colorado Supreme Court

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the repeal of two Chief Justice Directives: CJD 11-02, authorizing the Colorado Civil Access Pilot Project, and CJD 85-27, concerning indigency determinations for drug and alcohol treatment. Earlier in November, the Colorado Supreme Court repealed CJD 15-01 regarding public records. CJD 11-02 was repealed because the pilot project has ended and the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to incorporate provisions of the pilot project. CJD 15-01 was repealed because the Supreme Court issued new rules regarding public access to records of the judicial branch.

For a complete list of the Colorado Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Directives, click here.