2013 CO 56
Colo.2013Background
- A dependency and neglect petition was filed shortly after O.C.’s birth; O.C. was removed from her parents and placed in foster care.
- Grandparents moved to intervene multiple times (Oct 2010, Jul 2011, Jan 2012) seeking placement of O.C.; trial court repeatedly denied intervention motions.
- Trial court denials were based on § 19-8-507(5)(a)’s language requiring that those who intervene “have the child in their care for more than three months.”
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the three-month requirement applies to foster parents but not to relatives, allowing grandparents to intervene as of right after adjudication.
- Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari, found the issue not moot despite later placement with grandparents, and reviewed statutory ambiguity, legislative history, policy, and constitutional concerns.
- The Court affirmed the court of appeals: parents, grandparents, and relatives may intervene as a matter of right without meeting the three-month care requirement; the three-month rule applies only to foster parents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 19-8-507(5)(a) permits grandparents/relatives to intervene as of right without having had the child in their care for >3 months | Grandparents: statute allows parents, grandparents, relatives to intervene as of right at any time after adjudication | County/GAL: the statute’s plain language requires all listed persons, including relatives, to have had the child in their care >3 months before intervening | Held: statute ambiguous; interpretive tools show the 3-month requirement applies only to foster parents; relatives/parents may intervene as of right without the time requirement |
| Whether the case was moot after grandparents later obtained placement | Grandparents: subsequent placement does not moot significant public issue about intervention rights | County: placement renders controversy moot | Held: Not moot — issue is of great public importance and review warranted |
| Whether applying the 3-month requirement to parents would raise constitutional problems | Grandparents: applying the time bar to parents would infringe fundamental parental rights | County: (implicit) statute applies equally to all listed persons | Held: Applying the requirement to parents would likely be unconstitutional; interpret statute to avoid that result |
| Proper method for resolving statutory ambiguity | Grandparents: use legislative purpose, scheme, history, and constitutional avoidance to construe statute | County: rely on plain statutory text to require 3 months for all | Held: Use legislative purpose, scheme, and history; statutory text is ambiguous and favors limiting 3-month rule to foster parents |
Key Cases Cited
- Trinidad Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Lopez, 963 P.2d 1095 (Colo. 1998) (mootness and exceptions for matters of public importance)
- Humphrey v. Sw. Dev. Co., 734 P.2d 637 (Colo. 1987) (exception to mootness doctrine)
- A.M. v. A.C., 296 P.3d 1026 (Colo. 2018) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Colby v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 928 P.2d 1298 (Colo. 1996) (tools for resolving statutory ambiguity)
- State v. Nieto, 993 P.2d 493 (Colo. 2000) (when statutory language is ambiguous)
- Fall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224 (Colo. 1998) (avoidance of constitutional conflicts in statutory construction)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978) (parental rights and decisionmaking authority)