In Re BJ
2010 WL 4840479
| Colo. | 2010Background
- Julian, biological father, had sole custody of B.J. and K.J.; Glabs provided foster care for about 11 months during a D & N case.
- In 2005, Julian was awarded sole custody; a no-contact order with Summers remained in place.
- From 2005 to 2009, Julian allowed significant contact with the Glabs, creating a psychological bond between the children and the Glabs.
- In 2009 the Glabs petitioned for an allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) under C.R.S. 14-10-123(1)(c).
- The district court ordered daytime and two overnight visits in the Glabs' home over Julian's objection, without applying Troxel/C.A. standards or providing required findings.
- A CFI recommended two Saturday overnight stays; Julian objected and the court proceeded, triggering this Rule to Show Cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Troxel and C.A. apply at all stages of APR? | Glab: standards apply throughout APR. | Julian: investigatory stage exempt from Troxel/C.A. | Troxel and C.A. apply; no investigatory exception. |
| Is a non-parent’s visitation allowed without findings of special factors? | Glab: visiting should be allowed if warranted; need findings later. | Julian: require clear and convincing evidence with findings. | District court abused by not making required findings. |
| Was Glab standing proper under 14-10-123(1)(c)? | Glab maintained standing within six months of termination of physical care. | Julian: standing based on prior arrangement; timing issues adverse. | Court must apply correct standing analysis; issue not preserved for remand specifics. |
| What standards guide CFI recommendations and court’s use of them? | CFI data must be integrated with least intrusive methods and proper standards. | CFI recommendations must be weighed against Troxel/C.A. and findings. | District court failed to align CFI process with Troxel/C.A. and required findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights protect decisions; state interest requires special weight and findings)
- In re Adoption of C.A., 137 P.3d 318 (Colo. 2006) (special weight and clear-and-convincing standard in APR context)
- In re Parental Responsibilities of Reese, 227 P.3d 900 (Colo.App.2010) (non-parent request to allocate parental responsibilities requires best interests findings)
- Wilson v. Mitchell, 48 Colo. 454 (1910) (parental presumption in custody matters; earliest articulation of best interests)
- In re Custody of C.R.S., 892 P.2d 246 (Colo. 1995) (presumption of parental custody; rebuttable by best-interests evidence)
- In re Marriage of McNamara, 962 P.2d 330 (Colo. App. 1998) (court may weigh CFI recommendations against child’s best interests)