304 P.3d 589
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- A.C. was removed from his natural parents and placed in foster care days after birth; parental rights were terminated within a year.
- He was moved through multiple foster homes by the Denver Department of Human Services before settling with the appellee foster parents, who were certified as a 24-hour foster home for one year.
- After seven months, the Department reported positive progress and supported continued placement with foster parents until adoption, requesting continued Department custody and permanency pending adoption.
- A therapist later raised concerns about the foster mother’s behavior and honesty; a psychologist diagnosed possible personality disorder features and advised against returning A.C. to the foster parents.
- The Department removed A.C. from the foster home without notifying or consulting the guardian ad litem or the juvenile court; the GAL sought an immediate hearing.
- At subsequent hearings, the court acknowledged concerns and ultimately found it was not in A.C.’s best interests to return him to the foster parents; the court ordered a permanency review and contemplated possible re-placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether foster parents have a constitutionally protected liberty interest | Foster parents assert a protected liberty interest in continuing the relationship. | Court should recognize no liberty interest due to statutory/contractual basis and lack of continuous residence. | No protected liberty interest found. |
| Whether the best interests standard was correctly applied at removal | Court applied the wrong standard, failing to require clear and convincing evidence tied to permanency considerations. | Court properly evaluated best interests with appropriate evidence and standard. | Remanded for reconsideration; standard to be applied in light of permanency obligations. |
Key Cases Cited
- People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1982) (foster rights not protected liberty interest)
- Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform, 431 U.S. 816 (U.S. 1977) (foster parent–child relationship lacks constitutionally protected liberty interest)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (recognizes familial interests but within constitutional framework)
- A.M.D. (People in Interest of A.M.D.), 648 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1982) (principles guiding liberty interests in foster care context)
- A.J.L., 243 P.3d 244 (Colo. 2010) (de novo review of legal standards in permanency decisions)
- People in Interest of A.W.R., 17 P.3d 192 (Colo. App. 2000) (foster mother not entitled to due process protections)
- L.G. v. People, 890 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1995) (state’s interest in child welfare governs foster care rights)