In Re DIS
2011 WL 976608
| Colo. | 2011Background
- Guardianship of minor D.I.S. was created in Colorado under § 15-14-204(2)(a) by parental consent due to mother's health issues.
- Guardians Michael and Renee Sidman were appointed to provide care, with the parents retaining limited consultative rights under the order.
- Parents later sought to terminate the guardianship after mother's health issues improved and reunification with Massachusetts was contemplated.
- Trial court and court of appeals held that parental consent extinguished the Troxel presumption and placed the burden on parents to show termininus is in the child's best interests.
- Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding that a Troxel presumption applies to termination of a consensual guardianship and the guardians bear the burden by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Court clarified statutory framework: guardianship by consent is a delegation of day-to-day care, with limited powers unless a limited guardianship is chosen; termination proceedings must consider the child's best interests with proper burden on guardians.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Troxel presumption applies to termination of a consensual guardianship | Sidmans contended presumption favors parental decision to regain custody. | Guardians argued presumption does not apply once guardianship is established by consent. | Troxel presumption applies to termination; burden on guardians to show termination not in best interests. |
| What standard of proof applies in terminating a consensual guardianship | Sidmans rely on preponderance of the evidence to show best interests support termination. | Guardians urged higher standard or shifting burden. | Guardians must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is not in the child's best interests. |
| Role of the guardianship order in limiting or preserving parental presumptions | Parents should retain presumptions unless the order expressly limits them. | Order limitations do not preserve parental presumptions in termination. | In absence of express limitation, Troxel presumption applies; termination burden rests on guardians. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (presumption in favor of fit parents regarding custody/visitation)
- In re Adoption of C.A., 137 P.3d 318 (Colo. 2006) (presumption in parental visitation decisions, special weight standard)
- In re B.J., 242 P.3d 1128 (Colo. 2010) (Troxel presumption applies to custody disputes; special weight for parental determinations)
- In re Custody of C.C.R.S., 892 P.2d 246 (Colo. 1995) (presumption in custody related to parental rights and non-parent guardianship context)
- Wilson v. Mitchell, 48 Colo. 454 (1910) (parental right to custody; rebuttable presumptions in custody disputes)
- L.L. v. People, 10 P.3d 1271 (Colo. 2000) (parental rights and best interests balancing under Colorado law)
- In re Guardianship of Barros, 701 N.W.2d 402 (N.D. 2005) (guardian burden of proof in termination consistent with Troxel framework)