Complaint No. 1761178002 - 1905986939

Complaint Statement: Prosecutorial Misconduct in Quasi-Criminal Proceeding

Subject: Arapahoe County Department of Human Services – Title IV-D Enforcement Attorneys (Neutral Intervenor Team)

Nature of Misconduct: Prosecutorial misconduct; failure to disclose exculpatory material; misleading the tribunal; abuse of process; deprivation of due process rights in quasi-criminal enforcement proceeding.

Summary of Allegations:

The attorneys representing the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services (ACDHS), acting as the “neutral” intervenor in Case No. 01DR001137, exercised prosecutorial authority under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Despite this quasi-criminal role—one that carries potential deprivation of liberty and property—they refused to produce discoverable and exculpatory records, mischaracterized their role as neutral, and continued enforcement actions in violation of due-process and ethical mandates.

Specifically:

1. Withholding of Exculpatory Evidence (RPC 3.8(d)):
   The attorneys declined to provide materials directly requested under discovery and the Colorado Open Records Act, including the full enforcement case file, payment ledgers, communications, and internal policy manuals. These materials are exculpatory and necessary to verify or contest the alleged arrearage. Their suppression constitutes a violation of the duty to disclose evidence tending to negate the validity of the claim or mitigate enforcement consequences.
2. Misrepresentation of Role and Authority (RPC 3.3 & 3.8(a)):
   Although styled as “neutral intervenors,” these attorneys act as state prosecutors enforcing alleged violations on behalf of the People of Colorado. Their continued assertion of neutrality misleads the tribunal and the opposing party as to their true prosecutorial function and conflicts with established precedent that Title IV-D enforcement is quasi-criminal in nature (Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011); People v. Near, 2013 CO 81).
3. Improper Obstruction of Discovery (RPC 3.4(a)–(c)):
   The team asserted blanket, non-specific objections to discovery requests, refused to identify documents withheld, and continued enforcement activities without producing required evidence or privilege logs. This obstruction deprived the Respondent of a meaningful opportunity to be heard and constitutes unethical suppression of material evidence.
4. Continued Enforcement Without Verification (RPC 3.8(b) & 3.8(c)):
   Despite multiple formal notices—including the Legal Notice of Revocation of Consent dated May 30, 2025—the attorneys continued extrajudicial collection and enforcement actions without first verifying the accuracy, jurisdiction, or legality of the underlying claim.

Harm and Due Process Impact:
The combined effect of these actions is the deprivation of procedural due process, obstruction of discovery, and denial of the right to a fair hearing. The misconduct undermines the integrity of Title IV-D enforcement proceedings and erodes public trust in the impartial administration of justice.