Marriage of Harrington, No. 04CA1986 (Colo. App. August 3, 2006) Abstract: Trial judge Jane Sciullo-Tidball abused her discretion in denying father's motions to disqualify Bill J. Fyfe on the basis of alleged unethical conduct.

---

Marriage of Harrington, No. 04CA1161 (Colo. App. March 9, 2006) Abstract: Trial judge Jane Sciullo-Tidball abused her discretion in permitting special advocate Bill J. Fyfe to violate a binding fee contract and the original order of appointment in his alleged attempt to extort fees from father.

---

In Re Marriage of Redmond and Bezdek,  131 P.3d 1167 (Colo.App. 2005) Abstract: In a marital dissolution, the Jefferson County District Judge Ruthanne Polori ordered appellant, Virginia Card Smith, an attorney special advocate, to refund her fees to the parties because of altered dates on medical releases. The court ruled that because it believed the advocate's conduct was unethical, her work was of no value, and it declined to read her report. The advocate filed a timely motion to reconsider, which the court denied. Smith appealed. Smith first contended that the trial court erred in ordering her to refund her fees. The appellate court agreed. The trial court ordered Smith to refund the fees paid to her because of her admitted alterations of the dates on medical releases she sent to a medical professional. A court could order an attorney special advocate to refund his or her fees, in whole or in part, under its inherent powers as punishment for a violation of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. However, from the record, the appellate court could not determine whether that conduct amounted to a violation of the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. The trial court could only have ordered a refund of the fees if it had found that she altered the dates or caused them to be altered in violation of Colo. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c). The court's only basis for ordering a refund was that it had lost all confidence in her as a special advocate because of the altered dates on the medical releases. The court did not permit the advocate to explain the circumstances surrounding the alterations. Thus, it erred in not determining whether her conduct violated Rule 8.4(c).

---

In re Marriage of Dauwe, __P.3d__, 2006 WL 1493886 (Colo.App. June 1, 2006) Abstract: Among other things, the Court of Appeals agreed with father that the trial court erred in granting arbitration powers to the parenting coordinator. A parenting coordinator may "help [parents] realistically identify the sources and causes of conflict between them; and help them develop parenting strategies to minimize conflict" but a parenting coordinator is not permitted "to make decisions or resolve disputes that parents are unable to resolve." C.R.S. § 14-10-128.1(3)(d-e). With regard to release of the special advocate file, father argued that the trial court erred when it denied him access to the special advocate's file. Standard 12 of the Chief Justice Directives concerning special advocates (at the time of the hearing) stated that the special advocate shall provide the underlying data or reports. However, the comment to this standard stated the special advocate should inform the court if he or she believes that releasing their files would endanger any person's welfare and wait for direction from the Court. In this case, the trial court found that releasing the file would endanger the children and therefore affirms the lower Court.

---

In re Marriage of Yates, __ P.3d __, 2006 WL 1766848 (Colo. App. June 29, 2006) Abstract: Among other things, Husband argues that the special advocate, Doris Truhlar, acted improperly when she filed pleadings and participated as an attorney during a permanent orders hearing and that the court erred when it awarded her fees in excess of $43,000. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The court reasoned that Truhlar had been appointed under the former version of C.R.S. § 14-10-116(1), sought payment of her fees and cross-examined witnesses and that both attorneys approved of this procedure; therefore, there was no error.

---

People ex rel. D.G., M.G. and S.G., __ P.3d __, 2006 WL 1348470 (Colo. App. May 18, 2006) Abstract: Among other things, the Appeals Court again ruled that a trial court may not delegate the determination of entitlement to visitation to caseworkers, therapists and others.

---

In re Parental Responsibilities of Stadnyck, No. 04CA2318 (Colo. App. March 16, 2006) Abstract: Among other things, trial judge Kenneth Barnhill did not err in finding father in contempt (imposing a suspended jail sentence of thirty days and attorneys fees of $3,100 to be paid to attorney Madeline Wilson within ninety) days for father's "failure" to pay the trial judge's preferred special advocate, Thomas Meehan, a lump sum of $1,500, even `though the uncontroverted testimony was that father had made numerous attempts to make arrangements for partial installments, which had been rejected by Meehan. Further, the trial court did not err in terminating all contact between father and his daughter, including telephone calls, which the judge explained was because, "I want Mr. Stadnyck's attention." The transcript of the hearing is located here. The appellate docket and record is located here.

---

In re Marriage of Harrington, No. 03CA1825 (Colo. App. Dec. 30, 2004) Abstract: Among other things, the Appeals Court agreed with the father and echoed the ruling of several earlier cases that the trial court may not delegate the determination of entitlement to visitation to caseworkers, therapists and others. See also, In re marriage of Ohr, 97 P.3d 354 (Colo. App. 2004) (court may not delegate decision regarding parenting time to therapist and guardian ad litem); In re Marriage of Elmer, 936 P.2d 617 (Colo.App. 1997) (same, regarding psychiatrist). However, the Appeals Court disagreed with father and ruled that the trial court (in this case, Judge Sciullo-Tidball) may elect to disregard the opinion of a special advocate, which opinion was favorable to father. Further, the Appeals Court concluded that this was appropriate because, "the special advocate had not involvement in the case from the time of her 2001 report until the night before the hearing [of July 2, 2003]," despite that the trial court motions and the transcript contained father's testimony that father had, "proactively kept the special advocate involved over the past two years."

---

In re Marriage of Eggert, 53 P.3d 794 (Colo.App. 2002) Abstract: Appeals court concluded that the attempt by Doris Truhlar, as parenting coordinator, to collect her fees from child support funds paid into the court registry was the functional equivalent of conduct prohibited by § 13-54-102.5 and contrary to public policy. Consequently, the Appeals Court remanded to the trial court to determine if Trular's attempt was frivolous or groundless, as that is defined under § 13-17-102.

 

select law suits against divorce industry specialists