An advocate for parents who have had their children taken away in dependency and neglect cases has been found in contempt of court for practicing law in Colorado without a license.
In an unanimous ruling Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court ordered Suzanne Shell, 50, to pay a $6,000 fine.
The justices found that Shell twice contacted a lawyer representing two families in the midst of battles with the Fremont County Department of Human Services, in 2002 and again the next year.
They ruled that Shell – describing herself as an “agent” and “expert consultant” – had asked the lawyer to file specific documents, make certain legal arguments and propose jury instructions in the cases.
The court said that by doing so, Shell was practicing law, which she was prohibited from doing by an injunction and contempt citation in 2001. That year, the state’s Office of Attorney Regulation claimed Shell provided legal advice to parents in dependency and neglect cases, drafted pleadings for parents’ use, and attempted to represent parents in judicial proceedings.
Monday’s ruling was written by Allison Eid, the newest appointee to the court.
Shell’s lawyer, Paul Grant of Centennial, called the decision “just wrong.”
Shell, Grant said, “doesn’t charge a penny” to the families she helps. He said the attorney she contacted in the two Fremont County cases was free to reject Shell’s advice, which he did.
Grant said Shell’s primary purpose is to document abuses of dependency and neglect proceedings in Colorado, and that she wants to make a film documenting those abuses.
Over the years, she has lobbied the state legislature and local agencies on such issues.
Shell, who lives in rural El Paso County, said Monday she became involved in dependency and neglect cases after Elbert County in 1991 took away one of her children “for a spanking that left no marks.”
She said she got the child back in four days and Elbert County never filed a petition against her.
She said that parents who have their children snatched away from them experience a “profound depth of fear, rage and frustration at the way these cases are handled.
“It is psychological kidnapping,” she said.
Grant had challenged Colorado’s ban on the unauthorized practice of law as unconstitutional and said that Shell’s constitutional rights of free speech were being violated.
But Eid said that Shell’s freedom-of-speech rights were not involved because Colorado’s ban is directed at “conduct,” not “speech.”
Staff writer Howard Pankratz can be reached at 303-954-1939 or hpankratz@denverpost.com.
