2018 COA 165
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- In June 2015 Jefferson County filed a dependency and neglect petition concerning the newborn (C.N.) based on the mother’s mental health; the child was placed in foster care and the mother’s parental rights were terminated about a year later.
- A prior appeal by the mother was affirmed in early 2017; the foster parents continued to care for the child and later adopted the child in January 2018.
- The child’s maternal grandmother (A.N.) moved to intervene and sought placement roughly 18 months after birth and eight months after parental-termination; the juvenile court denied placement and terminated the grandmother’s visitation.
- On the day of the contested hearing the grandmother attempted to file a kinship-adoption petition in the dependency case; the court refused to accept it and directed that adoption proceedings be filed separately.
- The grandmother appealed, arguing (inter alia) she had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in association with the child requiring notice of the termination hearing, that the court lacked jurisdiction/venue, that denial to file the adoption petition was error, and that terminating her visitation was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to raise mother’s/child’s rights | Grandmother (A.N.) claimed she could assert mother’s and child’s procedural-rights issues as an intervenor | State: intervenor/third parties lack standing to assert rights of parents or child (unless GAL cannot) | Grandmother lacked standing to assert the rights of mother or child; GAL and statutory parties are proper advocates |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction / venue | Grandmother argued juvenile court lacked jurisdiction because child was not present/resident in Jefferson County | State: child’s presence in Colorado and mother’s temporary Jefferson County address support jurisdiction/venue rules | Court had subject-matter jurisdiction; venue was proper because mother listed a Jefferson County address and statutory residence rules applied |
| Constitutional liberty interest / notice of termination hearing | Grandmother claimed a fundamental associational liberty interest with the child requiring notice of termination | State: grandparents’ rights are statutory and limited; biological link alone confers no constitutional liberty interest | No constitutionally protected liberty interest for grandmother (no custodial relationship); no due-process notice required beyond statutory notice recipients |
| Filing adoption petition in dependency proceeding | Grandmother argued the court should have accepted her adoption petition in the pending dependency case | State: adoption proceedings are to be maintained on a separate docket; court not required to accept adoption filing into dependency case | Court properly refused to accept adoption petition into the dependency docket; adoption must proceed separately and grandmother suffered no prejudice |
| Termination of grandparent visitation | Grandmother argued termination of her visitation was improper | State: parental termination extinguishes derivative visitation rights of grandparents under statute | Visitation rights extinguished when parent’s rights terminated; juvenile court did not err in terminating grandmother’s visitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental-child relationship forms the core of constitutionally protected familial liberty interests)
- Mullins v. Oregon, 57 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 1995) (genetic link alone does not create a constitutional liberty interest for grandparents)
- People in Interest of C.E., 923 P.2d 383 (Colo. App. 1996) (extended family members without an existing custodial relationship lack a constitutionally protected liberty interest)
- People in Interest of M.M., 726 P.2d 1108 (Colo. 1986) (termination of parental rights extinguishes parent-child visitation rights)
- Graham v. Children’s Servs. Div., 591 P.2d 375 (Or. Ct. App. 1979) (grandparents do not have constitutionally protected liberty interest in grandchildren’s society)
- In re Adoption of Taylor, 678 S.W.2d 69 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984) (survey concluding grandparents lack constitutional liberty interest in grandchildren)