October 22, 2014

JDF Forms Amended in Domestic, Probate, Miscellaneous, and Other Categories

The Colorado State Judicial Branch continued revising forms in August and September. Revised forms include many instructions in the domestic relations category, some probate forms, the flexible caption and other miscellaneous forms, the district civil cover sheet, and more.

Forms are available for download here as PDF documents. For Word versions of most of the forms, visit State Judicial’s Forms page.

DOMESTIC

  • JDF 1099 – “Instructions to File for a Dissolution of Marriage or Legal Separation if there are No Children of this Marriage or if Children are Emancipated” (revised 9/14)
  • JDF 1100 – “Instructions to File Dissolution of Marriage or Legal Separation With Children of this Marriage” (revised 9/14)
  • JDF 1220 – “Instructions to Register a Foreign Decree Pursuant to § 14-11-101, C.R.S.” (revised 9/14)
  • JDF 1266 – “Instructions to File for a Dissolution or Legal Separation of Civil Union if there are No Children of this Civil Union or the Children are Emancipated” (revised 9/14)
  • JDF 1268 – “Instructions to File for a Declaration of Invalidity of a Civil Union (Annulment)” (revised 9/14)
  • JDF 1413i – “Instructions for Allocation of Parental Responsibilities” (revised 9/14)
  • JDF 1600 – “Instructions to File for a Declaration of Invalidity of Marriage (Annulment)” (revised 9/14)

PROBATE

  • JDF 840 – “Instructions for Appointment of a Guardian – Adult” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 862 – “Order Appointing Conservator for Minor” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 921 – “Order Admitting Will to Formal Probate and Formal Appointment of Personal Representative” (revised 8/14)

MISCELLANEOUS

  • JDF 207 – “Request and Authorization for Payment of Fees” (revised 8/14)
  • Flexible Caption – “Standard Flexible Caption for Pleadings” (revised 8/14)

MONEY CASES

  • JDF 601 – “District Court Civil Cover Sheet” (revised 8/14)

NAME CHANGE

  • JDF 420 – “Instructions for Filing for a Change of Name (Minor)” (revised 9/14)
  • JDF 421 – “Petition for Change of Name (Minor Child)” (revised 9/14)

SEAL MY CASE

  • JDF 416 – “Instructions to File a Petition to Seal Arrest and Other Criminal Records Other Than Convictions” (revised 9/14)

For all of State Judicial’s forms, click here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Question of Prospective Harm Inappropriate for Summary Judgment in Dependency and Neglect

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of S.N. on Thursday, September 11, 2014.

Parental Rights—Termination—Dependency and Neglect—Summary Judgment—Prospective Harm.

The Boulder County Department of Human Services (Department) removed S.N. from her parents’ custody at birth because a hearing on termination of parental rights involving the parents’ three older children was pending. The trial court adjudicated S.N. dependent and neglected by summary judgment based entirely on a theory of prospective harm.

On appeal, the parents argued that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on the Department’s petition for dependency and neglect regarding S.N. There were material facts that could affect the determination of whether S.N. should be adjudicated dependent and neglected. Therefore, the question of prospective harm was inappropriate for summary judgment because the parent’s prior conduct alone can never be sufficiently predictive of future conduct to take the question from a trier of fact by summary judgment. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded with directions.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Doctors who Instituted Medical Hold to Prevent Child’s Discharge Not Entitled to Absolute Immunity

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Thomas v. Kaven on Tuesday, August 26, 2014.

M.T., the minor daughter of plaintiffs Legina and Todd Thomas, was placed in a mental health center after revealing suicidal ideation to a police officer who was interviewing her after her parents learned she may have been sexually assaulted. While in the hospital, M.T.’s doctors diagnosed her with a panoply of psychiatric disorders and wanted to start psychotropic medicine. Plaintiffs refused, concerned that the diagnoses were inaccurate and worried about serious side effects. The doctors reported Plaintiffs to the New Mexico Child, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) for their resistance to M.T.’s treatment. After several weeks, Plaintiffs attempted to remove M.T. from the hospital, and the doctors instituted a medical hold to prevent Plaintiffs from removing M.T. The doctors and hospital initiated court proceedings five days later, but discharged M.T. after holding her for seven days because her insurance would no longer authorize treatment. The doctors again reported Plaintiffs to CYFD for medical neglect based on their decision not to medicate their child. M.T. returned to school and nothing came of the report.

Plaintiffs sued, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on violations of their Fourteenth Amendment right to direct their child’s medical care and right to familial association. The defendant doctors asserted absolute and qualified immunity and moved to dismiss. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, holding Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss because their complaint alleged sufficient facts to sustain their claims of violations of their right to direct their child’s medical care and right to familial association.

The Tenth Circuit clarified that Defendants are not entitled to absolute immunity for seeking a judicial order regarding M.T.’s care. Defendants’ decision to prevent M.T.’s discharge was based on a medical hold that did not invoke the judicial process. The Tenth Circuit next evaluated whether dismissal was appropriate based on qualified immunity, which is usually applied at the summary judgment stage rather than in a motion to dismiss.

As to Plaintiffs’ claims that their right to direct their child’s medical care was violated, the Tenth Circuit disagreed, noting that Plaintiffs’ claim rested on Defendants’ report to CYFD, and since nothing ever came of the report, mere allegations were not enough to violate their parental rights. However, as to Plaintiffs’ claim of violation of the right to familial association, the Tenth Circuit determined Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to illustrate a violation. The Tenth Circuit could not tell from the record whether Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and remanded for this determination.

The district court’s dismissal was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

JDF Forms Revised in Domestic, Probate, Seal My Case, and Other Categories

The Colorado State Judicial Branch revised many forms in July and August 2014. Several summons forms in the Domestic Relations category were revised, and additions of Returns of Service and Waivers and Acceptance of Service were made available for download as Word documents to accompany the revised forms. A new category was added for sealing underage alcohol and marijuana cases for offenses occurring after July 1, 2014. Forms were also amended in the Adoption, DMV Appeal, Probate, Miscellaneous, and Water categories.

Forms are available for download here as PDF documents, and are available as Word documents or Word templates from State Judicial’s Forms page.

Adoption

  • JDF 506 – “Notice of Adoption Proceedings and Summons to Respond” (revised 8/14)

Appeals

  • JDF 599 – DMV Appeal – “Complaint for Judicial Review Pursuant to Title 42, C.R.S., Request for Stay and Designation of Record” (revised 8/14)

Domestic

  • JDF 1102 – “Summons for Dissolution of Marriage or Legal Separation” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 1102(a) – “Waiver and Acceptance of Service” (8/14)
  • JDF 1102(b) – “Return of Service” (8/14)
  • JDF 1222 – “Summons for Registration of Foreign Decree” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 1222(a) – “Waiver and Acceptance of Service” (8/14)
  • JDF 1222(b) – “Return of Service” (8/14)
  • JDF 1251 -“Summons for Dissolution of Civil Union or Legal Separation of Civil Union” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 1262 – “Summons for Declaration of Invalidity of Civil Union” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 1262(a) – “Waiver and Acceptance of Service” (8/14)
  • JDF 1262(b) – “Return of Service” (8/14)
  • JDF 1406 – “Motion to Modify/Restrict Parenting Time” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 1414 – “Summons to Respond to Petition for Allocation of Parental Responsibilities” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 1414(a) – “Waiver and Acceptance of Service” (8/14)
  • JDF 1414(b)- “Return of Service” (8/14)
  • JDF 1502 – “Summons in Paternity” (8/14)
  • JDF 1502(a)- “Waiver and Acceptance of Service” (8/14)
  • JDF 1502(b)- “Return of Service” (8/14)
  • JDF 1515 – “Summons to Disclaim Paternity” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 1515(a)- “Waiver and Acceptance of Service” (8/14)
  • JDF 1515(b)- “Return of Service” (8/14)
  • JDF 1602 – “Summons for Declaration of Invalidity of Marriage” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 1602(a)- “Waiver and Acceptance of Service” (8/14)
  • JDF 1602(b)- “Return of Service”

Guardianship/Conservatorship/Probate/Trust & Estate

  • JDF 998 – “Instructions for Completing Affidavit for Collection of Personal Property” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 800 – “Acknowledgment of Responsibilities Conservator and/or Guardian” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 848 – “Order Appointing Guardian for Adult” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 861 – “Petition for Appointment of Conservator – Minor” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 878 – “Order Appointing Conservator for Adult” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 999 – “Collection of Personal Property by Affidavit” (revised 8/14)

Miscellaneous

  • JDF 36 – “Petition for Relief Pursuant to §13-5-142.5 OR §13-9-124 From Federal Firearms Prohibitions Imposed Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §922(d)(4) and (g)(4)” (8/14)

Seal My Case

  • JDF 323 – “Instructions to File a Petition to Seal Records Related to Underage Possession or Consumption of Alcohol or Marijuana (MIP)” (8/14)
  • JDF 313 – “Petition to Seal Records Related to Underage Possession and Consumption of Underage Alcohol or Marijuana (MIP)” (8/14)
  • JDF 314 – “Order Regarding the Sealing of Records Related to Underage Possession or Consumption of Alcohol or Marijuana (MIP)” (8/14)
  • JDF 416 – “Instructions to File a Petition to Seal Arrest & Criminal Records” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 417 – “Petition to Seal Arrest & Criminal Records” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 418 – “Order to Seal Arrest & Criminal Records” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 419 – “Order and Notice of Hearing (Sealing of Records)” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 435 – “Order Denying Petition to Seal Arrest & Criminal Records” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 611 – “Instructions to Seal Criminal Conviction Records” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 612 – “Petition to Seal Criminal Conviction Records” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 613 – “Order Denying Petition to Seal” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 614 – “Order and Notice of Hearing” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 615 – “Order to Seal Criminal Conviction Records” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 617 – “Certificate of Mailing (Sealing and Conviction Actions)” (revised 8/14)

Water

  • JDF 295W – “Standardized Instructions for all Colorado Water Court Divisions” (revised 8/14)

For all of State Judicial’s forms, click here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Wife’s Failure to Disclose Financial Records Not Fraud or Misconduct Under Rule 16.2(b)(2)

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in In re Marriage of Roddy and Betherum on Thursday, July 31, 2014.

Modification of Child Support—Abuse of Discretion—Financial Disclosures—CRCP 16.2(e)(10)—CRCP 60(b)(2) and (5).

When the parties’ 2003 decree of dissolution was entered, the court adopted their stipulation that wife would be the primary residential parent for the parties’ minor child and husband would pay her $3,000 in monthly child support. Eight years later, husband moved to modify child support on the bases that his parenting time had increased and his income had decreased since the order. After a hearing, the district court increased husband’s child support obligation to $4,604 per month.

On appeal, husband contended that the district court erred in its child support calculation. Because husband’s appeal from the child support order was untimely, this part of husband’s appeal was dismissed.

Husband also argued that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for post-trial relief after he established that wife had withheld financial information. The plain language of CRCP 16.2(e)(10) does not allow a court to re-determine a child support award. Further, although husband’s post-hearing evidence demonstrated that wife was “inconsistent” insofar as her finances were concerned, the court already made a finding at the child support hearing that wife’s testimony in that regard was “inconsistent” and “incredible.” Additionally, the parties did not dispute that their combined gross incomes exceed the uppermost guideline limits. Therefore, an exact income for wife was not required, because the court had discretion to deviate from the guidelines and enter an appropriate support order. As a result, the district court did not err by denying husband’s motion for relief.

Husband further argued that the court should have granted relief under CRCP 60(b)(5). Because husband alleged that wife either fraudulently failed to disclose or misrepresented her income, his motion fell squarely under CRCP 60(b)(2). In such cases, the residual provision of CRCP 60(b)(5) is not applicable. The appeal from the child support order was dismissed and the post-decree order was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Chief Justice Directives 04-04 and 04-05 Amended by Colorado Supreme Court

On Friday, July 25, 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court announced revisions to Chief Justice Directive 04-04, “Advisory Counsel Appointments,” and 04-05, “Appointment and Payment Procedures for CAC, GALs, CFIs, and CVs.” For both of these Chief Justice Directives, the changes were effective July 1, 2014.

The changes reflect rate changes to the payment of court-appointed attorneys and investigators and related services. They affect both civil and criminal cases. The changes to CJD 04-04 are reflected in Attachment D, and the changes to CJD 04-05 appear on pages 7 to 8.

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

Tenth Circuit: Oklahoma’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Bishop v. Smith on Friday, July 18, 2014.

Sally Smith, the County Clerk for Tulsa County, Oklahoma, appealed the district court’s decision that Oklahoma’s same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional. Smith also challenged the standing of the plaintiffs to bring the action, and whether the Oklahoma court clerk is a proper defendant as to Oklahoma’s non-recognition provision concerning same-sex marriages performed in another state. The Tenth Circuit determined that the plaintiffs had standing, affirmed the district court’s decision, and determined that the Oklahoma court clerk was an improper party regarding the non-recognition provision. In affirming, the Tenth Circuit applied its ruling in Kitchen v. Herbert, the Utah same-sex marriage case, in which it held that plaintiffs who wish to marry a partner of the same sex seek to exercise a fundamental right and state justifications for banning such marriages that hinge on the procreative potential of opposite sex marriage do not satisfy a narrow tailoring test applicable to laws that impinge upon fundamental liberties.

Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin are Oklahomans who are in a long-term relationship and wish to marry. They sought a marriage license from the Tulsa County Court Clerk in 2009 but were denied because they are both women. They have suffered harms from the denial, including incurring legal fees to prepare estate planning documents to confer upon each other the same rights they would have in marriage. Susan Barton and Gay Phillips were married in Canada in 2005 and again in California in 2008. They have suffered adverse tax consequences as a result of Oklahoma’s refusal to recognize their marriage, and say that Oklahoma treats them as inferior to their opposite-sex counterparts.

In November 2004, Bishop, Baldwin, Barton, and Phillips filed suit against the Oklahoma governor and  attorney general, challenging Oklahoma’s state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The governor and attorney general filed a motion to dismiss in 2006, which was denied, and appealed that denial to the Tenth Circuit. A panel of the Tenth Circuit determined in 2009 that plaintiffs failed to name a defendant having a causal connection to their injury, such as a court clerk. On remand, the district court allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add Smith in her official capacity as Tulsa County Court Clerk, and to add challenges to §§ 2 and 3 of DOMA against the United States ex rel. Eric Holder. In 2011, the United States notified the district court that it would no longer defend § 3 of DOMA on the merits, and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group was allowed to intervene to defend the law. The case proceeded to summary judgment, and Smith submitted an affidavit that she had no authority to recognize out-of-state marriages, be they of same-sex or opposite-sex couples.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, the district court entered an opinion and order disposing of the defendants’ motion to dismiss and the cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court ordered that Phillips and Barton lacked standing to challenge DOMA because state law resulted in the non-recognition of their marriage; any challenge to DOMA was moot in light of the Windsor decision; Phillips and Barton lacked standing to challenge Oklahoma’s non-recognition provision because Smith is not involved in recognition; and Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage (Part A of SQ 711) violates the Equal Protection Clause. Smith appealed the decision regarding Part A and Barton and Phillips cross-appealed the conclusion that they lacked standing. The DOMA issues were not challenged.

Smith first contends that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Part A of SQ 711 because they do not simultaneously contest a state statute to the same effect. However, the Tenth Circuit determined that a constitutional amendment would have the effect of superseding all previous statutes. The statute is not enforceable independent of SQ 711.

In addressing the merits of Smith’s appeal regarding Part A, the Tenth Circuit applied its reasoning from the Kitchen case. The Tenth Circuit opined that the Supreme Court’s dismissal in Baker v. Nelson is not controlling, plaintiffs seek to exercise a fundamental right to marry, and state justifications against same-sex marriage based on procreation fail to satisfy a strict scrutiny test. The Tenth Circuit first rejected Smith’s Baker arguments that lower courts are not free to reject summary dismissals, stating that her argument is undermined by the explicit language of the case creating the rule. Next, the Tenth Circuit evaluated her contention that children have an interest in being raised by their biological parents. The Tenth Circuit ruled that this contention is contradicted by statutes allowing adoption, egg and sperm donation, and other non-biological means for child-rearing. The Tenth Circuit noted that the state failed to raise arguments why same-sex marriage proposes a greater threat than other non-biological child-raising scenarios. Further, the Tenth Circuit stated that Oklahoma’s ban sweeps too broadly, because not all opposite-sex couples are able to procreate or are interested in procreation, and they are not denied the ability to marry.

As to the challenge to the non-recognition provision, the Tenth Circuit determined that Phillips and Barton lacked standing in this area because Smith is not a proper party. Smith submitted an affidavit to the effect that she is not able to recognize any marriages in her official capacity, and the affidavit is sufficient to establish that Smith is not a proper party regarding non-recognition. The Tenth Circuit sympathized with the plaintiffs, who have been litigating the issue for ten years, but suggested instead that if they attempted to file a joint tax return and were denied, they would be able to sue the Tax Commission regarding the denial.

The judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Probate, Domestic, Foreclosure, and Transcript Request Forms Revised

In June and July 2014, the Colorado State Judicial Branch issued several revised JDF forms. The Transcript Request Form, JDF 4, was revised in July and crosses many categories, including appeals, criminal, and miscellaneous. Other categories with revised forms include domestic relations, probate, and foreclosure. The revised forms are available here in PDF format, and are available for download as Word documents from the State Judicial forms pages.

DOMESTIC

  • JDF 1700 – “Instructions to File for Grandparent or Great-Grandparent Visitation” (revised 6/14)
  • JDF 1701 – “Verified Pleading Affidavit for Grandparent/Great-Grandparent Visitation” (revised 6/14)
  • JDF 1702 – “Order re: Pleading Affidavit for Grandparent/Great-Grandparent Visitation” (revised 6/14)
  • JDF 1704 – “Motion to Intervene” (revised 6/14)
  • JDF 1705 – “Order to Intervene” (revised 6/14)

EVICTIONS AND FORECLOSURES

  • JDF 618 – “Notice of Hearing for Expedited Residential Foreclosure Sale” (revised 6/14)

PROBATE

  • JDF 800 – “Acknowledgment of Responsibilities Conservator and/or Guardian” (revised 7/14)
  • JDF 841 – “Petition for Appointment of Guardian for Adult” (revised 6/14)
  • JDF 850 – “Guardian’s Report – Adult” (revised 6/14)

For all of State Judicial’s JDF forms, click here.

Fostering Success Legal Clinic — Why MVL is Addressing the Needs of Foster Kids!

By Peggy Hoyt-Hock, MVL Board Member

Foster Children. . . What comes to mind when you read this term? When I think of foster children, I tend to visualize something out of Oliver Twist . . . a group of young kids, hanging together, with little supervision. Then of course, I think of Jane Eyre, Annie or Harry Potter. Upon further reflection, I recall a few friends and acquaintances,who have on occasion mentioned that when young, they were fostered until perhaps being adopted or otherwise growing into successful, professional adults.

Then, consider this statistic: In the US, just over 30 percent of typical kids obtain a bachelor’s degree by age 25. When compared to children from the foster care system this number drops to two percent! Until writing this blog, I was unaware of the gap; honestly never giving the topic much thought. This difference presents just one example of the significant challenges children who age-out of the foster system must face.

The phone call came out of the blue. A professional young attorney, in fact an MVL Rovira Scholar introduced herself. “I am calling to ask you to serve as a volunteer for the first MVL Fostering Success Legal Clinic in July.” I asked her to tell me more about it. In the course of our conversation, I confirmed my commitment and discovered that Leeah Lechuga had direct personal experience with the foster care system.

If time would allow, we would both place individual calls to each good hearted attorney we know asking them to volunteer for this new Fostering Success Legal Clinic. Since neither of us have time, we are publishing this blog.

MVL has been fortunate to have had our recent Rovira Scholar, Leeah Lechuga. She reached out to share some of the challenges faced by an individual who ages-out of the foster care system. Leeah is a young and dynamic Colorado attorney, who recently left MVL for a Clerkship in the 18th Judicial District. If you happen to see her there, please join us in thanking her for arranging to have MVL partner with others to establish the new MVL“Fostering Success Legal Clinic.”

Snippets of the interview follow:

Peg, Q: You have personal experience with having to navigate the system. Can you share what it was like?

Leeah, A: My experience with my only out-of-home placement was wonderful. My foster parents made my experience with the system transformative.

It was the other systems that were difficult, after I aged out — student financial aid, finding an apartment, buying a car — I felt lost and incompetent constantly. I also felt lost in other ways, particularly recognizing the value in healthy relationships and building a healthy community. That is so important, but it took me a long time to get here.

Peg, Q: What can you tell the attorneys who read this blog, and may consider volunteering for this clinic — particularly those who may not have volunteered with MVL before — with regard to specific knowledge, skills, or experience they need?

Leeah, A: Attorneys, your willingness to be there is the biggest thing.

It is followed closely by a willingness to be an open book. Most of the legal issues won’t be complex. But you never know what seemingly trivial answer will unlock a whole new level of understanding and way of thinking for these young people. Something you say may connect with something that was said or overheard in a previous encounter. You can be transformative.

If you have not signed up to help with this clinic yet, please do so now. Let’s see how many lives the “Fostering Success Legal Clinic” can help transform over time! If you are interested, please contact diannev@denbar.org.

This article originally appeared on the MVL blog on July 3, 2014.

Colorado Supreme Court: Case-by-Case Evaluation of Summary Judgment Appropriateness Needed in Prospective Harm Cases

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People in Interest of S.N. on Monday, June 30, 2014.

Dependency and Neglect Adjudication—Prospective Harm—Summary Judgment.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether summary judgment is ever appropriate in a dependency and neglect adjudication involving prospective harm. The Court held that courts must evaluate whether summary judgment is appropriate in such instances on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to that court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Summary and full case available here.

Volunteers Needed for Denver Public Schools Adult Self-Sufficiency Programs

The Mile High United Way, Denver Public Schools, and the Denver Bar Association are collaborating to implement Adult Self-Sufficiency service programs for the Denver Public School community. DPS has chosen to implement the Adult Self-Sufficiency programs to ensure that families receive the services they need to be economically self-sufficient and support their children’s learning. Each program site is picked based on high-need neighborhoods where a greater-than-average percentage of families qualify for free- and reduced-price lunch. Studies have shown that parental or guardian financial instability and family mobility because of financial instability often make it difficult for students to stay on track academically.

The first program site will be College View Elementary at 2675 South Decatur Street in Denver.  We are looking for family law attorneys to provide a 20 minute phone consultation on domestic issues to parents at College View Elementary. For more information, contact Meghan Bush at (303) 824-5303 or mbush@cobar.org.

Volunteers Needed for Clinic on Collecting Child Support

The DBA Access to Justice Committee will be providing a training for the presenters of the newly created “How to Collect Child Support” public clinic. This clinic is a great way to get involved with the Denver community, gather information, and teach basic techniques for collecting support. The child support collections training will be on June 13 from 8:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. at the CBA offices, 1900 Grant St., 9th floor. One CLE credit available. Contact Meghan Bush to register.