People ex rel. M.D.
2014 COA 121
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- DHS filed a dependency and neglect petition in May 2011 alleging concerns about the parents' domestic violence and substance abuse; the child was placed in a foster home and remained there throughout the case.
- The child’s mother’s rights were terminated for failing to visit and comply with her treatment plan; she is not a party to this appeal.
- Father admitted to certain petition allegations, including methamphetamine use; the court adjudicated the child dependent and neglected and imposed a treatment plan on father.
- Father initially did not comply, but began to fulfill the treatment plan after a domestic violence conviction led to his arrest and probation.
- In July 2012 the department moved to terminate the parent-child relationship to achieve permanency within 12 months, but the termination hearing did not conclude until February 2018.
- Following remand from an unpublished reversal, the department and GAL pursued permanency by allocating parental responsibilities to the foster parents with father’s visitation; the court held a permanency hearing and granted the foster parents sole decision making and most parenting time, with a step-up schedule for father.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by limiting focus to compelling reasons under the permanency hearing statute. | Father argues the court should follow termination criteria on remand. | Foster parents needed permanent placement with compelling reasons not to return child to father. | affirmed; compelling reasons sufficed for nonparent custody |
| Whether the court violated M.D. I. and failed to follow remand directions. | Remand required reexamination and possible termination analysis consistent with M.D. I. | Remand was general; court had discretion to pursue a different course. | affirmed; general remand allowed new findings compatible with appellate ruling |
| Whether findings under 19-1-115(6.5) were required for a permanent disposition. | Permanent orders require additional statutory findings under 19-1-115(6.5). | 19-1-115(6.5) applies to temporary custody, not permanent placement. | affirmed; not required for permanent order |
| Whether the court adequately supported its findings under 19-8-702(8) regarding return to the parent. | There was insufficient basis to determine non-return within six months. | Record supported that return was unlikely and continued placement would harm the child. | affirmed; evidence supported non-return and six-month assessment |
| Whether a finding of unfitness was required before awarding permanent custody to a nonparent. | Unfitness must be shown to protect parental liberty interests. | Unfitness not required; compelling reasons and child’s best interests control. | affirmed; no unfitness finding required |
Key Cases Cited
- L.G. v. People, 890 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1995) (safety of child paramount; preserve family ties when possible)
- CM. v. People, 116 P.3d 1278 (Colo. App. 2005) (permanency planning; expedited proceedings; foster care permanency)
- In re C.A., 137 P.3d 318 (Colo. 2006) (grandparent visitation without proving parental unfitness)
- People in Interest of M.B., 70 P.3d 618 (Colo. App. 2003) (permanency planning and review standards)
- L.B., 254 P.3d 1207 (Colo. App. 2011) (procedural safeguards; reasonableness of efforts to finalize permanency)
- M.S. v. People, 303 P.3d 102 (Colo. 2013) (permissive nature of certain permanency determinations; not requiring fitness finding)