2012 CO 40
Colo.2012Background
- B.B.O. is the biological child of Berry and Olds and half-sister to V.O.; Berry and Olds divorced before B.B.O. was born.
- B.B.O. lived with her father and V.O. in Colorado for about six years until Olds's death in 2008; after Olds's death, B.B.O. continued living with V.O.
- Berry and Olds's separation and differing parental caretaking histories are central to who may petition for APR.
- Two months after Olds's death, V.O. petitioned for an allocation of parental responsibilities for B.B.O.
- The trial court granted standing to V.O. under both 14-10-128(1)(b) and (1)(c) and awarded APR to V.O. after a merits hearing; Berry appealed.
- The court of appeals reversed on standing, holding parental consent was required; this Court granted certiorari to address standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nonparents have standing without parental consent under 14-10-123(1)(b) or (1)(c). | Berry argues consent is required. | Olds/VO lacked consent; nonparentStanding requires consent. | Parental consent not required; nonparent has standing under (1)(b) or (1)(c). |
| Is Troxel v. Granville applicable to nonparent standing under 14-10-123(1)? | Troxel requires protection of parental rights; standing should be narrow. | Troxel limits but does not mandate a consent requirement here. | Troxel does not require a consent prerequisite for standing; standing is defined by care history. |
| Should the analysis of standing be conflated with best-interests merits? | Court should separate standing from merits; consent not needed. | Standing may be informed by how the child came to nonparent care. | Standing and best interests are distinct; consent not required for standing; merits remain governed by best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Custody of C.C.R.S., 892 P.2d 246 (Colo. 1995) (adopted literal meaning of physical custody, recognizing bonds and care dynamics in standing)
- In re C.R.C., 148 P.3d 458 (Colo.App. 2006) (nonparent standing analyzed under earlier CO rules; relied on Troxel/CCRS; consent not required for standing)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (due process protection for parents; weight to fit parent's decisions in best interests)
- In re B.J., 242 P.3d 1128 (Colo. 2010) (fit parent's best-interest presumption applies to APR proceedings)
- In re Marriage of Ikeler, 161 P.3d 663 (Colo. 2007) (standard of review for statutory interpretation as to legislative intent)