A judge’s gag order barring a mother of three from speaking out against a ruling terminating her parental rights may have been unconstitutional, but the mother lost her right to challenge her contempt citation that landed her in jail because she failed to make a timely appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled. 

“A party must obey a court order — even an unconstitutional order — unless and until that order is stayed, set aside or reversed on appeal,” a three-judge panel of the appeals court found. “With rare exceptions, a party cannot challenge a court order by violating it.”

The mother, Courtney Propst, received four contempt-of-court findings and was incarcerated at the Arapahoe County Jail from Aug. 31, 2020 until July 2, 2021, when she was released after posting a cash appeal bond of $20,000.

Now that the appeals court has upheld her contempt citations, she faces a return to jail and six more months of incarceration.

Propst’s lawyer, Suzanne Taheri, said she will appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.

“We plan an appeal addressing what the appeals court acknowledged were serious constitutional issues with the order,” Taheri said.

The jailing of Propst stemmed from a contentious divorce during which Propst alleged the father was sexually abusing their girls. The divorce launched a bitter court battle over parenting rights, which Arapahoe County District Judge Natalie Chase presided over.

Filing seeks to release mother jailed for criticizing judge’s order terminating parental rights

Chase, who issued the gag order barring the mother from speaking about the case, resigned in April 2021 for matters unrelated to the Propst case. She resigned amid reports of racial misconduct in other cases after acknowledging that she “undermined confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.”

In 2017, a year before the Propst divorce became final, the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services filed a dependency and neglect petition against the father, alleging he was sexually abusing the two younger children. A jury sided with the father, who denied any allegations of abuse.

Misconduct allegations against Colorado judge more extensive, document shows

Two years later, the county human services department filed a second petition, this time against the mother, alleging she had coached the oldest daughter into falsely reporting sexual abuse by the father. A jury found that all three girls were dependent and neglected by Propst and ordered her to comply with a treatment plan to give her insight into how her “behaviors alienated and emotionally harmed her children.”

Propst then began protesting the court’s order giving the father continued custody rights. In April 2020, she posted on the website Change.org a video of her interviewing the youngest daughter, making an outcry of alleged sexual abuse. She also posted a video of the oldest daughter’s journal entries purporting to disclose sexual abuse by the father.

In May 2020, the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services obtained an order that ordered her to take down her postings on the website and barred her from posting on “social media sites information related to the minor children and the allegations of abuse or neglect associated with the case.”

Propst refused to take down her postings and continued posting her allegations on other social media websites as well as her own website.

Judge Chase, at the request of the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services, in August 2020 terminated Propst’s parental rights, sealed the court case, and issued an order barring Propst from contacting the girls or the father.

After terminating Propst’s parental rights, the judge also barred Propst from talking to anybody about the case except her attorneys. Chase subsequently amended the order, allowing Propst to also communicate about the case with her therapists and doctors. Chase found that barring Propst from discussing the case with all other individuals was warranted “based on the history of this case” and due to the mother’s “repeated and relentless dissemination of the false allegations of abuse.”

One contempt citation against Propst stemmed from an opinion column that appeared in The Gazette written by Heidi Ganahl, a Republican now running to unseat Gov. Jared Polis. Ganahl has said she learned about the jailing of Propst through Moms Fight Back, a nonprofit organization Ganahl founded that focuses on family court reform and other issues. Ganahl has denied speaking with Propst about the case.

In the column, Ganahl did not name Propst or the judge in the case, but the column quoted a statement from the mother that read: “A system shouldn’t be able to destroy someone’s life. Punished for protecting, for speaking truth, for loving my daughters so much — I would do anything for them.”

After the column appeared, the father moved for a fourth contempt-of-court citation. The court sentenced Propst, who already was serving 17 months in jail, to an additional six months in jail.

Propst’s appeal to the Colorado Court of Appeals argued that her First Amendment rights to free speech had been violated by Chase’s order barring her from discussing the case.

False child sex abuse allegations used in intimidation plot against council member who wanted Colorado police chief fired: Police

The court of appeals panel acknowledged that Propst’s appeal raised “substantial constitutional issues,” but ruled that the judge’s order “must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings.”

The appeals court found that Propst did not file a timely appeal of the judge’s order barring her from discussing the case or speaking out against the case. It further ruled that only in rare exceptions can a party challenge a court order by violating it.

“This is so because the orderly and efficient administration of justice would be jeopardized if parties could determine for themselves when and how to obey a court order,” according to the ruling.

The appeals court also found there was sufficient evidence to support the fourth contempt-of-court citation. It found that seven recordings of telephone conversations Propst held with a friend while incarcerated at the Arapahoe County Jail showed she talked about “the unfairness of the case,” and made other statements violating the court order barring her from discussing the case with others.

Several of the recorded phone calls imply either that the author of the article that appeared in The Gazette “was in the room” with Propst’s friend, or that “the friend would pass information to the author,” the appeals court ruling states.

The opinion was written by Appeals Court Judge David Yun, with Appeals Court Judge Matthew Grove and Senior Appeals Court Judge Dennis Graham concurring. 

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify the names and number of judges who decided the case.