Peo in Interest of MT
24CA0482
| Colo. Ct. App. | Sep 5, 2024Background
- In August 2022, Adams County Department of Human Services filed a dependency and neglect petition concerning a six-year-old child, M.T., due to concerns over mother's (T.T.) mental health and inability to control the child.
- The juvenile court awarded temporary custody of M.T. to her maternal grandparents and found M.T. dependent or neglected; a treatment plan was adopted for the mother.
- By late summer 2023, mother's mental health declined, she stopped taking medications and engaging with services, and ceased attending family time visits.
- The guardian ad litem requested an allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) be awarded to the grandparents rather than placing M.T. in foster care.
- After a contested hearing, the court granted APR to the grandparents, citing mother's ongoing mental health issues and the child's progress in the grandparents' care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court applied the correct legal standard for allocating parental responsibilities (APR) | Mother argued the court used the wrong standard, relying too much on UDMA factors instead of the Children's Code | County argued the court properly considered all relevant factors focusing on child's best interests | The court applied correct standards; use of UDMA factors was appropriate so long as focus remained on child safety and best interests |
| Whether the court made findings on reasonable efforts to rehabilitate and reunite mother and child | Mother argued the court failed to make such findings | County pointed to record showing reasonable efforts | The court specifically found reasonable efforts were made by the Department |
Key Cases Cited
- People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1982) (Juvenile courts have extensive and flexible remedies in dependency and neglect cases)
- People in Interest of L.B., 254 P.3d 1203 (Colo. App. 2011) (Courts must allocate parental responsibilities in accordance with the child’s best interests)
- L.A.G. v. People in Interest of A.A.G., 912 P.2d 1385 (Colo. 1996) (Courts may consider UDMA factors but must keep primary focus on child safety in dependency proceedings)