Peo in Interest of FM, 24CA1471

The Weld County Department of Human Services initiated a dependency and neglect case after a 10-year-old child, F.M., alleged sexual abuse by her father and expressed mental health concerns.
The juvenile court adjudicated F.M. dependent/neglected; both parents were given treatment plans. Mother, J.O., complied with her plan and was found to be a fit parent; father was not.
F.M. was placed with her paternal grandmother. Although an ICPC home study for mother’s Utah home was approved, the child changed her mind about reunification, expressing a desire to stay with paternal grandmother.
Multiple hearings were held regarding the allocation of parental responsibilities (APR). The juvenile court initially found neither the Department nor the Child’s Counsel met their burden to rebut the presumption in favor of mother, but later changed course without clear explanation, awarding primary residence to paternal grandmother.
The court relied on year-old evidence and made inconsistent findings about credibility and best interests without addressing changed circumstances or considering updated testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mother’s parental rights (Troxel presumption) should be rebutted	J.O.: She is a fit parent; Troxel presumption applies	State/CFY: Evidence rebuts presumption; child’s best interests served by grandmother custody	Court abused discretion; insufficient new evidence to rebut Troxel presumption
Whether APR to grandmother is in best interest of the child	J.O.: No, evidence and therapist support reunification	State/CFY: Yes, child’s preferences/anxiety support placement with grandmother	No, court reversed based on conflicting/inadequate findings and lack of up-to-date evidence
Whether trial court adequately considered current circumstances	J.O.: Court relied on outdated evidence, ignored changes	State/CFY: Prior evidence was sufficient	Court erred; remand necessary for updated evidence and findings
Whether special factors justify override of fit parent’s wishes	J.O.: No special factors; fit parent entitled to deference	State/CFY: Child’s mental health and preferences are special factors	Court did not adequately identify or support special factors; reversal and remand ordered

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental fitness presumes best interests; heightened burden for nonparental custody)
In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning B.J., 242 P.3d 1128 (Colo. 2010) (clarifying clear and convincing burden to rebut fit parent’s wishes in APR context)
In Interest of C.T.G., 179 P.3d 213 (Colo. App. 2007) (special factors needed to override fit parent’s custody preference)