Concerning prohibition of certain monetary assessments against a juvenile in the justice system.
HB 26-1232 prohibits Colorado courts and the state from assessing or collecting a range of monetary obligations against juveniles and, in many cases, against the juvenile’s parents, guardians, or legal custodians. The bill covers time payment fees, community or useful public service fees, court costs and fines, sex offender and sexual exploitation of children surcharges, restorative justice surcharges, public defender processing fees, and certain court costs and surcharges tied to criminal actions and traffic offenses. It also applies these protections to outstanding amounts assessed on or after July 6, 2021, making them unenforceable and uncollectable.
The bill defines “juvenile” for these purposes as a person who was under 18 when the offense was committed and under 21 at sentencing. It amends multiple sections of Colorado law to make clear that these monetary assessments may not be imposed on juveniles or their families, and that existing outstanding obligations in covered categories cannot be enforced or collected. The legislative declaration states that the measure is intended to clarify prior law and ensure that fees do not continue to follow young people into adulthood or burden their families.
HB 26-1232 amends several provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes governing criminal and juvenile court fees, costs, and surcharges. It expands existing juvenile fee protections by expressly barring assessment and collection of specified monetary obligations against juveniles and, in many instances, their parents, guardians, or legal custodians, while also invalidating collection efforts for covered outstanding amounts assessed on or after July 6, 2021. The bill affects statutes in the areas of fee collection, community service administration, court costs and fines, sex offender-related surcharges, restorative justice, public defender processing fees, and traffic/criminal surcharge provisions.
The bill appears to have been viewed positively and as a continuation of prior juvenile justice reforms. Its legislative declaration emphasizes that earlier laws were intended to eliminate juvenile fees, that courts continued to assess some fees even if they were not collected, and that the judiciary has not been harmed by eliminating these charges. The absence of recorded committee testimony or vote detail in the provided materials suggests no documented public controversy in the available record, and the bill ultimately passed and was signed by the Governor.
The main policy issue addressed by the bill is whether monetary assessments should ever be imposed on juveniles or shifted to their parents or guardians. The bill’s sponsors and declaration take the position that such fees are inappropriate, should not follow a child into adulthood, and should not burden families. Any potential point of contention would likely center on the fiscal and administrative implications for courts and state programs that rely on fees and surcharges, but the bill’s text expressly states that the judiciary has not been harmed by eliminating them. No specific opposition is reflected in the provided committee or vote materials.