In re the Parental Responsibilities Concerning M.D.E., 2013 Colo. App. LEXIS 106

This is a dissolution of marriage case where father Scott D. Rottler challenges a district court order allowing Bernice M. Spencer, the great-grandmother, to intervene and seek grandparent visitation under section 19-1-117, C.R.S. 2012.
The child’s mother had earlier filed a petition for allocation of parental responsibilities, and final orders resolving the dispute did not mention great-grandmother.
Great-grandmother sought to intervene and obtain grandparent visitation under § 19-1-117, arguing the term grandparent should include great-grandparents by logical extension.
The magistrate granted intervention but reserved ruling on visitation; the district court later upheld that ruling.
Colorado’s definition of grandparent for § 19-1-117 limits it to the parent of a child’s father or mother, excluding great-grandparents.
The court ultimately vacates the district court’s order, holding great-grandmother does not have standing to seek visitation under § 19-1-117.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether great-grandmother is a grandparent for § 19-1-117 standing	Rottler argues great-grandmother is not a grandparent under the statute.	Spencer contends grandparent includes great-grandparent by liberal construction.	Great-grandmother is not a grandparent; she lacks standing.

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (visitation statutes implicate parental rights and require special weight)
In re Adoption of C.A., 183 P.3d 318 (Colo. 2006) (grandparent visitation must be weighed against parental rights)
Hassler v. Account Brokers of Larimer Cnty., Inc., 274 P.3d 547 (Colo. 2012) (statutory construction principles guide interpretation of terms)
Urevich v. Woodard, 667 P.2d 760 (Colo.1983) (strict scrutiny for statutes that limit rights)
In re D.C., 116 P.3d 1251 (Colo.App.2005) (grandparent visitation not available absent appropriate case)