254 P.3d 1203
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- L.B. was born in 2002 to R.B. and A.B. and their marriage later dissolved in 2010.
- Department opened a voluntary dependency and neglect case in 2009 due to domestic violence and concerns about L.B.'s behavior and well-being.
- L.B. initially remained with mother under a treatment plan; father became primary caretaker under a safety plan.
- In September 2010, a contested permanency planning hearing allocated parental responsibilities, finding L.B. had special needs and that father had a better ability to meet them; a shared plan was deemed infeasible.
- The court awarded sole physical custody and decision-making authority to father and his parents jointly; mother received supervised visitation every two weeks with travel costs split.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother's ineffective-assistance claim warrants remand. | R.B. asserts trial counsel was ineffective and seeks remand. | The court reasons ineffective-assistance relief is unavailable absent termination of parental rights. | No relief for ineffective assistance absent termination. |
| Adequacy of procedural safeguards under 19-3-702(8.5). | Mother contends safeguards and reasonable efforts were insufficient. | Court indicates safeguards were adequate and reasonable efforts were made. | Procedural safeguards and reasonable efforts formally adequate. |
| Law governing disposition and best interests in a dependency case. | Mother argues need to show unfitness/endangerment and best-interests factors. | Dispositional order permitted under dependency framework without unfitness findings due to adjudication of dependence. | Disposition supported; no unfitness findings required; best-interests supported. |
| Authority to grant permanent custody and parental responsibilities in dependency case. | Challenge to award sole custody to father and his parents. | Court ensured L.B.'s best interests are served under the dependency framework and placement with father is appropriate. | Sole physical custody to father and his parents affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- A.L.L. v. People, 226 P.3d 1054 (Colo. 2010) (statutory right to counsel in dependency proceedings)
- People in Interest of M.C., 94 P.3d 1220 (Colo. App. 2004) (right to counsel at first appearance in dependency cases)
- S.S. v. Wakefield, 764 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1988) (due process right to counsel when termination may occur)
- People in Interest of C.H., 166 P.3d 288 (Colo. App. 2007) (due process right to counsel in dependency matters)
- People in Interest of M.G., 128 P.3d 332 (Colo. App. 2005) (no due-process right to counsel where custody not terminated)
- L.A.G. v. People, 912 P.2d 1385 (Colo. 1996) (precondition for custody decision in dependency is court finding current environment detrimental)
- E.C., 70 P.3d 618 (Colo. App. 2003) (reasonable efforts for permanency plan under dependency context)