The Colorado Supreme Court issued an order Jan. 12 granting a petition for writ of certiorari in a complex family law case that raises important questions about appellate jurisdiction in matters involving parental rights and child custody.
In *T.L.P. v. The People of the State of Colorado* (No. 25SC680), the high court agreed to review whether the Colorado Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed a father's appeal on jurisdictional grounds. The case involves the interests of a minor child identified as T.T.M.P. and concerns another party identified as B.M.L.T.
The Colorado Supreme Court's brief order demonstrates the focused nature of its review. Rather than accepting all issues raised in the original petition, the court reframed the case to address a single question: "Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Father's appeal on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction." The court explicitly denied consideration of all other issues that may have been raised in the petition.
The underlying case originated in the Colorado Court of Appeals under case number 25CA1769. While the specific details of the lower court proceedings are not detailed in the Supreme Court's order, the jurisdictional dismissal suggests that procedural questions arose about the appeals court's authority to hear the father's challenge.
Jurisdictional questions in family law cases can be particularly complex, often involving issues such as timing of appeals, standing to appeal, and whether proper notice requirements were met. Courts must have jurisdiction before they can consider the merits of any case, making these threshold questions critical to the judicial process.
In family law matters involving minor children, jurisdictional requirements serve important purposes beyond mere procedural compliance. These requirements help ensure that cases are heard in the appropriate forum and that all necessary parties are properly notified and given an opportunity to participate in proceedings that could affect their rights and interests.
The fact that this case involves "the interests of minor child" T.T.M.P. suggests that child custody or parental rights issues are at stake. Colorado law provides specific protections for children in such proceedings, including requirements that courts consider the best interests of the child in making custody determinations.
The Colorado Supreme Court's decision to hear this case en banc indicates the potential significance of the jurisdictional question being addressed. En banc review, meaning the full court will consider the case rather than a panel of justices, is typically reserved for matters of particular importance or cases that raise issues requiring clarification of state law.
By limiting its review to the jurisdictional question, the Colorado Supreme Court appears to be focusing on establishing clear precedent about when appellate courts have authority to review family law decisions. This could have implications beyond the immediate parties, potentially affecting how similar cases are handled throughout the state court system.
The timing of the case is also noteworthy. The Court of Appeals case number 25CA1769 suggests the appeal was filed in 2025, indicating this matter has moved relatively quickly through the appellate process. The Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari and issue its order in January 2026 reflects the court's apparent recognition of the importance of resolving the jurisdictional question promptly.
While the Colorado Supreme Court's order provides limited information about the specific circumstances that led to the Court of Appeals' jurisdictional dismissal, the high court's willingness to review that decision suggests there may be genuine questions about whether the dismissal was appropriate.
The case name structure, with T.L.P. as petitioner against The People of the State of Colorado as respondent, indicates this may involve a challenge to state action or a state court decision. The involvement of "The People" as a party often occurs in cases where the state has an interest in child welfare or protection.
Family law practitioners and appellate attorneys throughout Colorado will likely monitor this case closely, as the Supreme Court's eventual decision could provide important guidance on jurisdictional requirements in family law appeals. Clear jurisdictional rules help ensure that parties understand their rights and obligations when seeking appellate review of family court decisions.
The Colorado Supreme Court's focused approach in this case—granting review on the jurisdictional question while denying review of other issues—suggests the court recognizes the need to establish clear precedent on this procedural matter without getting drawn into the underlying substantive family law disputes.
As this case proceeds, the Colorado Supreme Court will have the opportunity to clarify important aspects of appellate jurisdiction in family law cases, potentially providing greater certainty for litigants and lower courts in future similar matters. The court's decision will determine whether the Court of Appeals properly exercised its authority in dismissing the father's appeal or whether that dismissal was in error, requiring further proceedings on the merits of his challenge.