2018 CO 8
Colo.2018Background
- Infant C.W.B., Jr. was adjudicated dependent/neglected after injuries; placed with foster parents J.S. and A.S.; both parents admitted dependency.
- Father’s rights were later terminated; GAL moved to terminate Mother’s rights; after a two-day hearing the juvenile court denied termination, finding Mother had complied with her plan.
- Foster parents had intervened under § 19-3-507(5)(a) and participated at trial; neither the Department nor the GAL appealed the denial of termination.
- Foster parents, acting alone, appealed the denial; the court of appeals held they had standing and affirmed the trial court on the merits.
- Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari solely on whether intervening foster parents have standing to appeal and whether they may represent the child’s best interests on appeal.
- Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals: held foster-parent intervention rights under § 19-3-507(5)(a) do not automatically confer appellate standing where the Department and GAL decline to appeal; GAL is statutorily tasked to represent the child’s best interests, including on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Foster parents) | Defendant's Argument (GAL/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether foster parents who intervened under §19-3-507(5)(a) have standing to appeal denial of a motion to terminate parental rights | Intervention confers party status and, per A.M., the right to participate fully — that includes appellate review; they had a stake because they were potential adoptive placements | Intervention is a procedural right to participate at trial only; standing to appeal requires injury in fact to a legally protected interest; GAL/State represent child’s interests and declined to appeal | No. Intervention does not automatically confer standing to appeal; foster parents lacked injury in fact and a legally protected interest here; appeal must be dismissed |
| Whether foster parents can represent the child’s best interests on appeal | Foster parents argued they could (A.M. recognized their role advocating for the child) and no one else appealed | GAL has statutory duty to represent child’s best interests at all stages, including appeal; GAL’s choice not to appeal is not a sign of abandonment | No. The GAL is the statutorily designated advocate for the child, so there was no need to confer appellate advocacy rights on foster parents |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1986) (intervenor status below does not automatically satisfy Article III standing on appeal)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (U.S. 2013) (a litigant must assert own legal rights; third-party rights generally not enough for standing)
- Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1991) (limitations on litigating others’ rights shape prudential standing)
- Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1645 (U.S. 2017) (intervenor under Rule 24(a)(2) seeking relief not requested by plaintiff must meet Article III standing)
- City of Greenwood Village v. Petitioners for Proposed City of Centennial, 3 P.3d 427 (Colo. 2000) (Colorado standing doctrine includes constitutional and prudential limits)
- McCall v. Dist. Ct., 651 P.2d 392 (Colo. 1982) (State is the exclusive party entitled to bring dependency and neglect actions)