A division of the court of appeals determines that the parents were not required to seek district court review of the magistrate’s dispositional order before appealing the district court’s adjudicatory order for three reasons. First, the plain language of 19-1-109(2)(c) provides that adjudicatory orders are final and appealable upon the entry of a dispositional order; 19-1-109(2)(c) does not require dispositional orders to be final or require parties to seek district court review of magistrates’ dispositional orders before appealing adjudicatory orders. Second, 19-1-108(5.5), which requires parties to file petitions for district court review of magistrate orders before appealing magistrate orders, did not apply because nether parent appealed the magistrate’s dispositional order. Third, although 19-1-109(2)(c) provides that adjudicatory orders are not final until dispositional orders are entered, no authority provides that adjudicatory orders are not final until district courts review magistrates’ dispositional orders. Fourth and finally, requiring district court review of the magistrate’s dispositional order in this case would produce an absurd result in this case because the magistrate’s dispositional order was not challenged by any party.

The division also determines that the district court’s error, if any, in exercising peremptory challenges allocated but unexercised by the parties, was harmless for four reasons. First, the district court was required to excuse two jurors in order to comply with C.R.J.P. 4.3(a). Second, the district court explained its reasons for dismissing the jurors and its reasons did not suggest any bias. Third, nether parent objected to the district court’s dismissal of the two jurors. Fourth, nether parent explained prejudice or how the district court’s actions caused the proceeding to be fundamentally unfair.

Click here to access the case in Westlaw.