Peo in the Interest of NGG, 2020 COA 6

Background

In July 2016 Mesa County DHS opened a dependency and neglect case; the children (ages 6, 5, 3) were placed in mother’s custody under protective supervision.
Mother and father admitted the children were dependent and neglected through no fault of the parents; a jury found the paternal grandmother had abused/mistreated the children and the court adjudicated the children dependent and neglected based on grandmother’s care.
The juvenile court adopted treatment plans for mother, father, and grandmother; mother successfully completed her plan and was found able to safely parent the children.
At a permanency APR hearing the court awarded mother sole decision‑making authority and primary parenting time, awarded father supervised time, and granted the grandmother supervised (with possible transition to unsupervised) visitation; the court also required notification of extracurricular activities and a high‑conflict parenting class and included a relocation provision allowing mother to move without father’s agreement if he could not be located or was incarcerated.
Mother appealed the visitation/notification provisions arguing the court failed to apply the Troxel presumption restoring parental decision‑making; father appealed the relocation provision as premature and statutorily improper.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded: it held the Troxel presumption was restored after mother’s successful treatment compliance and that the relocation provision violated the governing law and was premature.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a parental presumption that the parent acts in the child’s best interests is restored after a dependency adjudication when the parent subsequently complies with a treatment plan and is found able to safely parent	Mother: presumption is restored after successful compliance; mother entitled to discretion over grandparent visitation and notifications	Grandmother/juvenile court: continued court‑ordered visitation needed because of risk mother would cut off contact; court imposed visitation without applying Troxel presumption	Court: presumption is restored when parent complies with treatment plan and can safely parent; juvenile court must apply Troxel, require grandmother to rebut by clear and convincing evidence, and identify special factors to override mother’s discretion; visitation order reversed and remanded
Whether an APR judgment may permit relocation without the other parent’s agreement if that parent is incarcerated or unlocatable	Father: provision is premature and contrary to statutory relocation process; relocation determinations must be based on circumstances at time of proposed move and follow statutory notice/best‑interest procedures	Mother/court: provision allowed relocation if father could not be located or was incarcerated (purportedly to avoid future litigation)	Court: relocation provision was premature and conflicted with statutory scheme; it must be reconsidered and cannot be preemptively granted in APR judgment

Key Cases Cited

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (fit parents are presumptively acting in child's best interests; courts must give special weight to parental decisions)
In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning B.J., 242 P.3d 1128 (Colo. App. 2010) (Troxel presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence; court must identify special factors)
In re Adoption of C.A., 137 P.3d 318 (Colo. 2006) (parental discretion over nonparent visitation; Troxel principles applied)
In re Marriage of Ciesluk, 113 P.3d 135 (Colo. App. 2005) (relocation analysis and best‑interests factors)
Patterson v. Cronin, 650 P.2d 531 (Colo. 1982) (parties must be afforded meaningful opportunity to be heard)
L.A.G. v. People in Interest of A.A.G., 912 P.2d 1385 (Colo. 1996) (juvenile court authority over custody matters)
People in Interest of C.M., 116 P.3d 1278 (Colo. App. 2005) (Children’s Code legislative purposes)