is identical to an issue actually determined in the prior proceeding; (2) the party against whom estoppel is asserted has been a party to or is in privity with a party to the prior proceeding; (3) there is a final judgment on the merits in the prior proceeding; and (4) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding. Bebo Constr., 990 P.2d at 85; Guar. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Williams, 982 P.2d 306, 308 (Colo.1999); Indus. Comm'n, 732 P.2d at 619-20. Only when each of these elements has been satisfied are the equitable purposes of the doctrine furthered by issue preclusion. -It is settled law that a full and fair opportunity to litigate an issue requires not only the availability of procedur 1211-1212 (1989) (<HOLDING>), as well as from differences in the potential
recognizing that even though standards of proof and findings in care and protection proceeding are identical to those in subsequent consent to adoption proceeding collateral estoppel inapplicable because incentive to litigate custody or appeal findings from earlier proceeding which are limited and do not carry same degree of finality may be substantially less than incentive to litigate or appeal findings in adoption proceeding which permanently terminates legal parentchild relationship holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding holding no state court jurisdiction in an adoption proceeding holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding recognizing that parents incentive to defend in a child in need of supervision proceeding where resulting order is temporary in nature and entitles parent and child to government services is dramatically different from incentive to vigorously litigate same issues in parentaltermination proceeding where the result is permanent and completely severs parentchild relationship