Authority of the Department to Conduct Restoration Evaluations as Services Necessary to Competency Restoration

Introduction

In In Re The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Juvenile: J.D. (2025 CO 14), the Colorado Supreme Court addressed an issue of first impression concerning the Colorado Department of Human Services’ authority to perform competency reevaluations of juveniles under the juvenile competency statutes. J.D., a juvenile defendant facing multiple delinquency charges, was initially found incompetent to proceed—but restorable—based on a Department-ordered competency evaluation. The court then ordered the Department to oversee restoration services. Six months later, the Department conducted a second evaluation on its own initiative and reported to the court that J.D. had been restored to competency. J.D. moved to strike that report, arguing that the Department lacked statutory authority to conduct a “restoration evaluation” absent a fresh court order under section 19-2.5-704(2)(c), C.R.S. (2024). The People and the lower juvenile court countered that competency reevaluations are part and parcel of “services necessary to competency restoration” which the Department is expressly charged with coordinating under subsection (2)(b). The Supreme Court granted original jurisdiction and, applying de novo statutory interpretation, held that the plain language of section 19-2.5-704(2)(b) authorizes the Department to conduct restoration evaluations without a separate court order. The court discharged the rule to show cause and affirmed the juvenile court’s acceptance of the Department’s report.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously concluded:

The Department of Human Services is expressly “responsible for the oversight of restoration education and coordination of services necessary to competency restoration” under section 19-2.5-704(2)(b).
The term “services necessary to competency restoration” plainly encompasses periodic competency reevaluations—i.e., “restoration evaluations”—because monitoring a juvenile’s progress toward competency is integral to restoration services.
Accordingly, the Department may conduct such restoration evaluations on its own initiative and without obtaining a new court order under subsection (2)(c).
Because the Department’s evaluation of J.D. was properly authorized, the juvenile court did not err in considering that evaluation or in finding J.D. restored to competency.
The Supreme Court discharged the order to show cause, leaving intact the competency restoration finding and permitting the proceedings against J.D. to resume.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Young v. Hodges, 2014 CO 1: Invoked to illustrate when original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21 is appropriate for issues of first impression affecting public importance.
In re People in Int. of A.T.C., 2023 CO 19: Demonstrated the harm of proceeding while a juvenile remains incompetent, justifying original jurisdiction.
People v. Iannicelli, 2019 CO 80: Established that statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo and that clear legislative language controls.
Carrera v. People, 2019 CO 83 and Martinez v. People, 2020 CO 3: Reinforced that if a statute is unambiguous, the court applies its plain meaning without further inquiry.
Zapata v. People, 2018 CO 82: Acknowledged that competency evaluations serve both diagnostic and treatment purposes, supporting inclusion of reevaluations within “restoration services.”
People in Interest of B.B.A.M., 2019 CO 103: Highlighted ambiguities in the juvenile competency statute that legislative amendments later addressed.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis proceeded in three steps:

Standard of Review & Statutory Framework: Statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo. The juvenile competency scheme (sections 19-2.5-701.5 through 706) protects juveniles from trial or sentencing if incompetent and prescribes:
- Initial competency findings and court‐ordered evaluations (§ 19-2.5-703).
- Procedures following an incompetency‐but‐restorable finding, including court‐ordered restoration services and periodic progress hearings (§ 19-2.5-704(2)(a)).
- The Department’s role: oversight of restoration education and coordination of services necessary to restore competency (§ 19-2.5-704(2)(b)).
- Conditions for court‐ordered “restoration evaluations” upon credible changes and balancing negative impacts (§ 19-2.5-704(2)(c)).
Plain Language Construction: The Court emphasized that “services necessary to competency restoration” is not defined narrowly. Applying ordinary meaning and avoiding absurd results, it found that:
- Restoration evaluations—diagnostic tools to gauge a juvenile’s progress—are integral to coordinating and tailoring restoration services.
- To exclude reevaluations from “services necessary” would undermine timely monitoring and frustrate legislative aims of efficient restoration.
- Statutory references to mandatory hearings triggered by evaluator reports (§ 19-2.5-705) further imply that the Department may produce such reports without fresh court orders.
Reconciliation of Subsections (2)(b) & (2)(c): The Court explained that subsection (2)(c) does not limit the Department’s inherent authority under subsection (2)(b) but rather provides an alternative mechanism for courts or parties to demand a formal reevaluation when specific criteria are met. Subsection (2)(c) complements—but does not displace—the Department’s broad coordination role.

Impact

This decision clarifies the interplay between the juvenile court and the Department of Human Services in competency restoration cases:

It affirms the Department’s ability to monitor and adjust restoration plans dynamically through reevaluations, ensuring juveniles receive appropriate interventions without procedural delay.
It reinforces the legislature’s intent to permit continuous oversight by the Department while preserving courts’ authority to demand formal evaluations under defined circumstances.
The ruling will guide juvenile courts statewide in structuring competency restoration orders and in allocating responsibilities between judicial and administrative agencies.
Future litigants will know that challenges to Department-initiated evaluations must rest on other grounds (e.g., evaluator qualifications or procedural irregularities), not on a supposed lack of statutory authority.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Competency to Proceed: A juvenile’s ability to understand courtroom proceedings and communicate rationally with counsel.
Competency Evaluation: A court‐ordered assessment by a qualified evaluator to decide if a juvenile is competent or, if not, whether restoration is likely.
Restoration Services: Educational and therapeutic treatments (e.g., legal education, behavioral therapy, medication management) ordered by the court to restore competency.
Restoration Evaluation: A follow‐up assessment—conducted by the Department or by independent evaluators—to measure a juvenile’s progress toward competency.
Original Jurisdiction (C.A.R. 21): A procedural remedy allowing the Supreme Court to resolve urgent, novel legal questions when no adequate appellate remedy exists.

Conclusion

In Re J.D. establishes the clear principle that the Department of Human Services, by virtue of its statutory mandate in section 19-2.5-704(2)(b), may conduct competency reevaluations as part of the “services necessary to competency restoration” without obtaining a separate court order under subsection (2)(c). The Court’s plain‐language approach ensures timely, flexible restoration services while preserving judicial oversight through formal mechanisms when parties seek additional protections. This holding will shape the practice of juvenile competency restoration in Colorado, reaffirming the collaborative roles of courts and administrative agencies in safeguarding due process for juveniles.