Can parents ever agree to arbitrate claims on behalf of their minor children?

Yes, parents can agree to arbitrate claims on behalf of their minor children if the arbitration agreement clearly and unambiguously expresses that intent. This typically requires specific language indicating the parents are agreeing to arbitrate not only their own claims but also the claims belonging to their children.

GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners:

Headline: Arbitration Agreement Doesn't Cover Claims for Minor Children

Citation:

Court: Colorado Supreme Court · Filed: 2025-06-09 · Docket: 24SC785

Published

Outcome: Defendant Win

Impact Score: 65/100 — Moderate impact: This case has notable implications for related legal matters.

Legal Topics: Arbitration agreement interpretation Scope of arbitration clauses Parental authority to bind children to arbitration Claims brought on behalf of minors Negligence in genetic testing Informed consent in medical treatment

Legal Principles: Mutual assent to arbitrationBinding effect of arbitration agreements on non-signatoriesInterpretation of contract languageDerivative vs. direct claims

Brief at a Glance

Parents signing arbitration agreements for genetic testing do not bind their minor children to arbitration for claims brought on behalf of the children.

Scrutinize arbitration agreements for language binding minors.
Understand the distinction between individual and representative claims.
Consult legal counsel regarding arbitration clauses affecting children.

Case Summary

GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners:, decided by Colorado Supreme Court on June 9, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. This case concerns whether a genetic testing company and its associated medical providers can compel arbitration for claims brought by parents on behalf of their minor children, alleging negligence and lack of informed consent in genetic testing services. The court examined the scope of arbitration agreements signed by the parents and whether those agreements extended to claims brought in a representative capacity for the children. Ultimately, the court found that the arbitration agreements did not encompass the claims brought on behalf of the minor children, leading to the denial of the motion to compel arbitration. The court held: The court held that the arbitration agreement signed by the parents did not clearly and unambiguously express an intent to arbitrate claims brought by the parents in their capacity as guardians for their minor children, thus reversing the lower court's order compelling arbitration.. The court reasoned that while parents can generally bind themselves to arbitration, they cannot bind their children to arbitration for claims the children possess unless the agreement explicitly states such intent or the children's claims are derivative of the parents' claims.. The court found that the claims brought on behalf of the minor children for alleged negligence and lack of informed consent were direct claims belonging to the children, not derivative of any claims the parents might have had.. The court distinguished between claims the parents brought in their individual capacity (which might be subject to arbitration) and claims brought on behalf of the children (which were not clearly covered by the agreement).. The court emphasized the strong public policy favoring arbitration but also the need for clear consent, especially when attempting to bind third parties like minor children..

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives

Plain English (For Everyone)

If you sign an arbitration agreement for a service, it usually only applies to disputes you have as an individual. If you're signing on behalf of your children, like for genetic testing, the agreement likely won't cover claims made for your children. This means you can still sue in court for issues affecting your kids, even if you agreed to arbitration for yourself.

For Legal Practitioners

The Colorado Supreme Court held that parents signing arbitration agreements in their individual capacity do not bind their minor children to arbitration for claims brought on behalf of the children. The court's analysis focused on the lack of clear intent to bind the children and the distinction between individual and representative claims. This ruling reinforces the principle that parties must clearly consent to arbitration, and such consent is not automatically imputed to non-signatories, especially minors, when acting through a representative.

For Law Students

This case illustrates the principle of non-signatory enforcement in arbitration. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that parents, by signing an arbitration agreement individually, did not bind their minor children to arbitration for claims brought on behalf of the children. The court emphasized that arbitration agreements must clearly express intent to bind all parties, and minors are not automatically bound when claims are brought in a representative capacity.

Newsroom Summary

A Colorado court has ruled that parents who sign arbitration agreements for genetic testing services cannot force their children to arbitrate claims related to that testing. The court found that the agreements only applied to the parents individually and did not extend to disputes involving the children's rights.

Key Holdings

The court established the following key holdings in this case:

The court held that the arbitration agreement signed by the parents did not clearly and unambiguously express an intent to arbitrate claims brought by the parents in their capacity as guardians for their minor children, thus reversing the lower court's order compelling arbitration.
The court reasoned that while parents can generally bind themselves to arbitration, they cannot bind their children to arbitration for claims the children possess unless the agreement explicitly states such intent or the children's claims are derivative of the parents' claims.
The court found that the claims brought on behalf of the minor children for alleged negligence and lack of informed consent were direct claims belonging to the children, not derivative of any claims the parents might have had.
The court distinguished between claims the parents brought in their individual capacity (which might be subject to arbitration) and claims brought on behalf of the children (which were not clearly covered by the agreement).
The court emphasized the strong public policy favoring arbitration but also the need for clear consent, especially when attempting to bind third parties like minor children.

Key Takeaways

Scrutinize arbitration agreements for language binding minors.
Understand the distinction between individual and representative claims.
Consult legal counsel regarding arbitration clauses affecting children.
Assert rights to litigate on behalf of minors if arbitration is not clearly agreed to for them.
Ensure clear consent is obtained for arbitration involving minors.

Deep Legal Analysis

Standard of Review

De novo review. The court reviews the grant or denial of a motion to compel arbitration de novo because the interpretation of an arbitration agreement is a matter of contract law, which is a question of law.

Procedural Posture

The case reached the Colorado Supreme Court on a petition for writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision, which affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The respondents/cross-petitioners (Maldonados) appealed the trial court's order compelling arbitration for claims brought individually, but the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of arbitration for claims brought on behalf of the minor children.

Burden of Proof

The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and that the dispute falls within the scope of that agreement. The standard is whether the arbitration agreement encompasses the claims at issue.

Legal Tests Applied

Scope of Arbitration Agreement

Elements: Existence of a valid arbitration agreement · Whether the dispute falls within the scope of the agreement

The court analyzed the language of the arbitration agreements signed by the parents, Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques. The agreements contained clauses stating that the parties agreed to arbitrate 'any dispute, claim, or controversy arising out of or relating to... the services provided by GeneDx.' However, the court found that the claims brought by the parents on behalf of their minor children, JAC and JMC, were brought in a representative capacity and did not fall within the scope of the agreements signed by the parents in their individual capacities. The court distinguished between claims brought by the parents individually and claims brought on behalf of the children, emphasizing that the children were not parties to the arbitration agreements.

Statutory References

C.R.S. § 13-22-204	Validity of arbitration agreement. — This statute governs the validity and enforceability of arbitration agreements in Colorado. The court referenced this statute in determining whether the arbitration agreements were valid and enforceable, particularly in the context of claims brought on behalf of minors.
C.R.S. § 13-22-206	Power to order arbitration. — This statute grants courts the power to order arbitration when an agreement to arbitrate exists. The court's decision on whether to compel arbitration was guided by this statutory provision.

Key Legal Definitions

Arbitration Agreement: A contract between parties agreeing to resolve disputes through binding arbitration rather than through litigation in court.

Representative Capacity: Acting on behalf of another person or entity, such as parents acting on behalf of their minor children.

Informed Consent: The process by which a patient is given sufficient information about a medical procedure or treatment, including risks and benefits, to make a voluntary decision.

Negligence: A failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in a similar situation, resulting in harm to another person.

Rule Statements

"The arbitration clause in the contract between the parents and GeneDx did not clearly and unambiguously express an intent to bind the minor children to arbitration for claims brought on their behalf."

"Parents, in their individual capacity, cannot bind their children to an arbitration agreement to which the children are not parties."

"The claims brought by the parents on behalf of their minor children were distinct from any claims the parents might have had in their individual capacity."

Remedies

The motion to compel arbitration for claims brought on behalf of the minor children, JAC and JMC, was denied. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Entities and Participants

Key Takeaways

Scrutinize arbitration agreements for language binding minors.
Understand the distinction between individual and representative claims.
Consult legal counsel regarding arbitration clauses affecting children.
Assert rights to litigate on behalf of minors if arbitration is not clearly agreed to for them.
Ensure clear consent is obtained for arbitration involving minors.

Know Your Rights

Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:

Scenario: You sign an arbitration agreement for your child's medical genetic testing, agreeing to arbitrate any disputes related to the services.

Your Rights: You have the right to pursue legal action in court for claims related to your child's genetic testing if the arbitration agreement does not clearly state that it binds your child when you sign in your individual capacity.

What To Do: Review the arbitration agreement carefully to see if it explicitly states it binds your child. If it only refers to 'you' or 'the patient' in a way that suggests individual agreement, and the claims are for your child's well-being, consult with an attorney about your options to litigate rather than arbitrate.

Is It Legal?

Common legal questions answered by this ruling:

Is it legal for a genetic testing company to force parents to arbitrate claims on behalf of their minor children?

Depends. While arbitration agreements are generally enforceable, a company cannot force parents to arbitrate claims on behalf of their minor children if the agreement was signed by the parents only in their individual capacity and does not clearly and unambiguously state an intent to bind the children. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled against compelling arbitration in such a scenario.

This ruling is specific to Colorado law regarding arbitration agreements and minors.

Practical Implications

For Parents of minor children who have undergone or will undergo genetic testing.

Parents can pursue claims in court on behalf of their minor children for issues arising from genetic testing, even if they signed an arbitration agreement for themselves, provided the agreement doesn't clearly bind the children.

For Genetic testing companies and healthcare providers offering such services.

These companies must ensure their arbitration agreements clearly and explicitly state that they intend to bind minor children when parents sign in a representative capacity, or they may face litigation rather than arbitration for claims brought on behalf of minors.

Related Legal Concepts

Arbitration
A method of dispute resolution where parties agree to have their case heard by a... Contract Interpretation
The process of determining the meaning of the terms of a contract. Minor's Rights
Legal protections and rights afforded to individuals under the age of majority. Agency Law
The body of law that governs the relationship where one party (the agent) is aut...

Frequently Asked Questions (30)

Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.

Basic Questions (8)

Q: What is GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners: about?

Q: What court decided GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners:?

Q: When was GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners: decided?

Q: What is the citation for GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners:?

The citation for GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners: is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What was the main issue in the GeneDx case?

The main issue was whether parents who signed arbitration agreements for genetic testing services could be compelled to arbitrate claims brought on behalf of their minor children, or if those claims could be pursued in court.

Q: Did the court compel arbitration for the claims brought on behalf of the minor children?

No, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the arbitration agreements signed by the parents in their individual capacity did not extend to claims brought on behalf of their minor children, JAC and JMC.

Q: Who are the parties involved in the GeneDx case?

The parties include GeneDx, Inc., GeneDx, LLC, and several medical providers and institutions (Petitioners/Cross-Respondents) versus Secily Maldonado, John Anthony Carcanaques, and their minor children JAC and JMC (Respondents/Cross-Petitioners).

Q: What type of claims were alleged in the GeneDx case?

The claims alleged by the parents on behalf of their minor children included negligence and lack of informed consent related to genetic testing services provided by GeneDx.

Legal Analysis (11)

Q: Is GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners: published?

Q: What was the ruling in GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners:?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners:. Key holdings: The court held that the arbitration agreement signed by the parents did not clearly and unambiguously express an intent to arbitrate claims brought by the parents in their capacity as guardians for their minor children, thus reversing the lower court's order compelling arbitration.; The court reasoned that while parents can generally bind themselves to arbitration, they cannot bind their children to arbitration for claims the children possess unless the agreement explicitly states such intent or the children's claims are derivative of the parents' claims.; The court found that the claims brought on behalf of the minor children for alleged negligence and lack of informed consent were direct claims belonging to the children, not derivative of any claims the parents might have had.; The court distinguished between claims the parents brought in their individual capacity (which might be subject to arbitration) and claims brought on behalf of the children (which were not clearly covered by the agreement).; The court emphasized the strong public policy favoring arbitration but also the need for clear consent, especially when attempting to bind third parties like minor children..

Q: What precedent does GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners: set?

GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners: established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the arbitration agreement signed by the parents did not clearly and unambiguously express an intent to arbitrate claims brought by the parents in their capacity as guardians for their minor children, thus reversing the lower court's order compelling arbitration. (2) The court reasoned that while parents can generally bind themselves to arbitration, they cannot bind their children to arbitration for claims the children possess unless the agreement explicitly states such intent or the children's claims are derivative of the parents' claims. (3) The court found that the claims brought on behalf of the minor children for alleged negligence and lack of informed consent were direct claims belonging to the children, not derivative of any claims the parents might have had. (4) The court distinguished between claims the parents brought in their individual capacity (which might be subject to arbitration) and claims brought on behalf of the children (which were not clearly covered by the agreement). (5) The court emphasized the strong public policy favoring arbitration but also the need for clear consent, especially when attempting to bind third parties like minor children.

Q: What are the key holdings in GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners:?

1. The court held that the arbitration agreement signed by the parents did not clearly and unambiguously express an intent to arbitrate claims brought by the parents in their capacity as guardians for their minor children, thus reversing the lower court's order compelling arbitration. 2. The court reasoned that while parents can generally bind themselves to arbitration, they cannot bind their children to arbitration for claims the children possess unless the agreement explicitly states such intent or the children's claims are derivative of the parents' claims. 3. The court found that the claims brought on behalf of the minor children for alleged negligence and lack of informed consent were direct claims belonging to the children, not derivative of any claims the parents might have had. 4. The court distinguished between claims the parents brought in their individual capacity (which might be subject to arbitration) and claims brought on behalf of the children (which were not clearly covered by the agreement). 5. The court emphasized the strong public policy favoring arbitration but also the need for clear consent, especially when attempting to bind third parties like minor children.

Q: What cases are related to GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners:?

Precedent cases cited or related to GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners:: In re D.P.A., 195 P.3d 1135 (Colo. 2008); Hess v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., 91 P.3d 1001 (Colo. 2004); AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011).

Q: What is the standard of review for compelling arbitration?

The standard of review is de novo because the interpretation of an arbitration agreement is a question of law, involving contract interpretation.

Q: Can parents bind their children to an arbitration agreement they signed individually?

Generally, no. Parents cannot bind their minor children to an arbitration agreement unless the agreement clearly and unambiguously expresses an intent to do so, and the children are not parties to the agreement.

Q: What is the significance of the 'representative capacity' in this ruling?

The ruling emphasizes that claims brought by parents in a 'representative capacity' for their children are distinct from claims brought by the parents individually. The arbitration agreement signed by the parents individually did not cover these representative claims.

Q: What legal principle does this case reinforce regarding arbitration agreements?

The case reinforces the principle that parties must clearly consent to arbitration, and consent is not automatically imputed to non-signatories, especially minors, when claims are brought through a representative.

Q: What does 'de novo' review mean in this context?

De novo review means the appellate court looks at the issue anew, without giving deference to the lower court's decision, because it involves a question of law (interpreting the contract).

Q: What is the burden of proof for a party seeking to compel arbitration?

The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and that the dispute falls within the scope of that agreement.

Practical Implications (4)

Q: What should parents do if they want to ensure their child's claims are not subject to arbitration?

Parents should carefully review any arbitration agreement and, if possible, seek legal advice to understand whether it clearly binds their child. They should be aware that signing an agreement individually may not cover claims made on behalf of their child.

Q: What if a genetic testing company's agreement has vague language about arbitration?

Vague language may not be sufficient to bind a minor child. The Colorado Supreme Court requires clear and unambiguous intent. If the language is unclear, it may be possible to argue that the claims on behalf of the child are not covered by the arbitration agreement.

Q: What happens to the case after the Colorado Supreme Court's decision?

The case is remanded back to the lower courts for further proceedings. The motion to compel arbitration for the children's claims was denied, meaning those claims can proceed in court.

Q: Does this ruling apply to all contracts signed by parents for their children?

This ruling specifically addresses arbitration agreements in the context of genetic testing services. While the principles may apply broadly, the exact wording of other contracts and specific state laws could lead to different outcomes.

Historical Context (2)

Q: What historical legal principle is relevant here?

The principle that courts are generally protective of minors' rights and require clear consent for actions that may waive their right to access the court system is historically relevant.

Q: How have courts historically viewed arbitration agreements involving minors?

Historically, courts have scrutinized arbitration agreements involving minors, requiring a clear showing of intent to bind the child and often ensuring that the arbitration process is fair and protective of the minor's interests.

Procedural Questions (4)

Q: What was the docket number in GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners:?

The docket number for GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners: is 24SC785. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners: be appealed?

Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

Q: What procedural step led to this ruling?

The case reached the Colorado Supreme Court via a petition for writ of certiorari, after the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration for claims brought on behalf of the minor children.

Q: What is a 'writ of certiorari'?

A writ of certiorari is an order from a higher court to a lower court to send up the records of a case for review. It is a discretionary review, meaning the higher court chooses whether to hear the case.

Cited Precedents

This opinion references the following precedent cases:

In re D.P.A., 195 P.3d 1135 (Colo. 2008)
Hess v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., 91 P.3d 1001 (Colo. 2004)
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011)

Case Details

Case Name	GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners:
Citation
Court	Colorado Supreme Court
Date Filed	2025-06-09
Docket Number	24SC785
Precedential Status	Published
Outcome	Defendant Win
Disposition	reversed
Impact Score	65 / 100
Complexity	moderate
Legal Topics	Arbitration agreement interpretation, Scope of arbitration clauses, Parental authority to bind children to arbitration, Claims brought on behalf of minors, Negligence in genetic testing, Informed consent in medical treatment
Jurisdiction	co

Related Legal Resources

Colorado Supreme Court Opinions Arbitration agreement interpretation Scope of arbitration clauses Parental authority to bind children to arbitration Claims brought on behalf of minors Negligence in genetic testing Informed consent in medical treatment co Jurisdiction Home Search Cases Is It Legal? 2025 Cases All Courts All Topics States Rankings Arbitration agreement interpretation Guide Scope of arbitration clauses Guide Mutual assent to arbitration (Legal Term)Binding effect of arbitration agreements on non-signatories (Legal Term)Interpretation of contract language (Legal Term)Derivative vs. direct claims (Legal Term) Arbitration agreement interpretation Topic Hub Scope of arbitration clauses Topic Hub Parental authority to bind children to arbitration Topic Hub

About This Analysis

This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of GeneDx, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GeneDx, LLC, a Non-Maryland limited liability company; Katelyn Beattie, MSG, CGC; Amanda Lindy, FACMG, PhD; Children's Hospital of Colorado, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; Alison Ballard, RN, CPNP; Melissa Gibbons, MS, Genetic Counselor; Lisa McCown, MS, Genetic Counseling Graduate Student; and University of Colorado Hospital Authority located at Anschutz Campus, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents v. Secily Maldonado, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; John Anthony Carcanaques, individually, and as next friends, natural parents, and guardians of their son JAC, a minor, and their daughter JMC, a minor child; J.A.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques; and J.M.C., individually by and through their guardians and custodians Secily Maldonado and John Anthony Carcanaques, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners: was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.

CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Related Cases

Other opinions on Arbitration agreement interpretation or from the Colorado Supreme Court:

Gustavo Lopez v. The People of the State of Colorado.
Colorado Supreme Court: Miranda statements voluntary under totality of circumstances

Colorado Supreme Court · 2026-04-13
Jaimi J. Mostellar v. City of Colorado Springs, a Colorado municipality.
Unlawful Traffic Stop Extension Leads to Unconstitutional Vehicle Search

Colorado Supreme Court · 2026-04-13
Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners; Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc.; Graham Contracting Ltd.; Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America; Balfour Beatty, LLC; and Graham Business Trust.
Colorado Supreme Court · 2026-04-06
CenturyLink, Inc.; Glen F. Post, III; R. Stewart Ewing, Jr.; David D. Cole; William A. Owens; Martha H. Bejar; Virginia Boulet; Peter C. Brown; W. Bruce Hanks; Jeffrey K. Storey; Steven T. Clontz; Mary L. Landrieu; Gregory J. McCray; Harvey P. Perry; Michael J. Roberts; Laurie A. Siegel; and Sunit S. Patel v. Dean Houser
Colorado Supreme Court · 2026-04-06
Khristina Phillips v. The People of the State of Colorado.
Colorado Supreme Court · 2026-04-06
People v. Shockey
Exigent Circumstances Justify "Plain View" Contraband Discovery

Colorado Supreme Court · 2026-03-30
Townsell v. People
Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Warrantless Vehicle Search Under Automobile Exception

Colorado Supreme Court · 2026-03-30
The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant: v. Dakotah J. Lulei. Defendant-Appellee:
Court Upholds Dismissal of DUI Vehicular Homicide Charge Due to Insufficient Evidence of Impairment at Time of Accident

Colorado Supreme Court · 2026-03-30