People Ex Rel. Lb, 254 P.3d 1203

L.B. was adjudicated dependent and neglected with both parents after a September 2009 petition alleging abuse and concerning sexualized behavior; L.B. had special medical and developmental needs requiring ongoing services.
The Department sought temporary legal custody during permanency planning and recommended residential treatment for L.B.; L.B. ultimately completed the program and was placed with father in his home.
The court found L.B. as high-maintenance with significant needs; father and his parents were better able to meet those needs and supervise her well.
The court determined a shared-parenting plan would not be feasible due to L.B.’s difficulty with transitions and the availability of services in the father’s southwest Colorado location.
The court awarded sole physical custody and decision-making to father and his parents, with mother receiving supervised visitation every two weeks and travel costs split between the parties.
Permanent orders in the domestic case are not shown to reflect the same custody and decision-making allocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Effectiveness of counsel in custody dispute	RB contends trial counsel was ineffective	Court should dismiss unless termination rights are at stake	No relief because no right to counsel in custody-only disposition unless rights terminated
Procedural safeguards under 19-3-702(3.5)	RB claims safeguards were not adequately applied	Court properly protected rights and attempted reasonable efforts	Procedural safeguards satisfied; reasonable efforts addressed by plan and services
Necessity of unfitness/endangerment findings for dispositional order	RB argues required findings of unfitness or endangerment	In dependency and neglect, custody may be awarded without such findings	No unfitness/endangerment finding required when adjudication supports custody by nonparents under statute
Best interests factors under 14-10-124(1.5)	RB asserts must apply explicit best interests factors	Dispositional order adhered to best interests and evidence supports award	Explicit factors not required; board found placement aligned with L.B.'s best interests
Department's reasonable efforts to finalize permanency plan	RB argues efforts were insufficient	Record shows extensive services; placement avoided out-of-home	Department complied with reasonable efforts; permanency plan achieved

A.L.L. v. People, 226 P.3d 1054 (Colo.2010) (statutory right to counsel for indigent parents; ineffective assistance not available absent termination)
M.G. v. People, 128 P.3d 332 (Colo.App.2005) (no due process right to counsel in custody-disposition against nonterminated rights)
Hartley, In re Marriage of, 886 P.2d 665 (Colo.1994) (constitutional right to counsel limited to criminal-equivalent proceedings)
L.A.G. v. People, 912 P.2d 1385 (Colo.1996) (precondition to custody decision in dependency and neglect; not required to apply UDMA factors)
A.M. v. People, 786 P.2d 476 (Colo.App.1989) (dependency/disposition framework; state intervention authority)
C.M. v. People, 116 P.3d 1278 (Colo.App.2005) (permanency and best interests in custody allocations)
E.D. v. People, 221 P.3d 65 (Colo.App.2009) (allocation of parental responsibilities under best interests)
D.R.W. v. People, 91 P.3d 453 (Colo.App.2004) (standard of review for dependency and neglect determinations)
S.G.L. v. People, 214 P.3d 580 (Colo.App.2009) (preponderance of the evidence standard in dependency cases)
J.M. v. People, 74 P.3d 475 (Colo.App.2003) (ability to challenge dispositional orders post-adjudication)
K.D. v. People, 139 P.3d 695 (Colo.2006) (evidence sufficiency in custody determinations)
S.S. Wakefield, 764 P.2d 70 (Colo.1988) (due process in parental rights termination)
M.B. v. People, 70 P.3d 618 (Colo.App.2003) (consideration of safeguarding rights in permanency planning)