People in Interest of L.M, 416 P.3d 875

Mother tested positive for opiates prenatally; newborn meconium showed opiates, oxycodone, and oxymorphone; prior Department referrals existed.
The Alamosa County Department filed an Article 3 dependency and neglect petition; parents ultimately admitted and the children were adjudicated dependent and neglected.
A dispositional treatment plan was adopted for Mother; the court initially found it could not devise a plan for Father but later allowed efforts toward reunification.
Guardian ad litem filed an Article 3 termination motion; Mother relinquished her parental rights and did not contest termination.
After Mother’s relinquishment, the Department filed an Article 5 relinquishment/termination petition as to Father; the juvenile court terminated Father’s rights under Article 5.
The court of appeals reversed, holding that when an Article 3 dependency and neglect proceeding is pending, termination may proceed only under Article 3; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State/Department)	Defendant's Argument (Father / Court of Appeals)	Held
Whether State may terminate non-relinquishing parent under Article 5 when an Article 3 dependency/neglect proceeding is pending	Article 5’s plain language requires filing a termination petition after a parent relinquishes; Article 5 applies even if Article 3 is pending	Article 3 governs adjudicated dependent/neglected children and provides more protective procedures; Article 5 is inappropriate when Article 3 is pending	When an Article 3 proceeding is pending, termination of parental rights must proceed under Article 3, not Article 5 (Affirmed)
Whether Article 5 would impermissibly circumvent Article 3’s protections	Article 5 is an alternative, not conflicting, procedure; no demonstrable statutory conflict	Allowing Article 5 would let State evade Article 3’s heightened procedural and substantive safeguards	Article 5 cannot be used to avoid Article 3’s procedures when dependency/neglect adjudication and related termination petition are pending

In re K.D., 139 P.3d 695 (Colo. 2006) (Children’s Code seeks to preserve family while ensuring child welfare)
People ex rel. A.M.D. v. District Court, 648 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1982) (termination is a last resort after reasonable efforts to restore parent-child relationship)
A.M. v. A.C., 296 P.3d 1026 (Colo. 2013) (summarizes procedural protections in Article 3 termination proceedings)
City of Florence v. Pepper, 145 P.3d 654 (Colo. 2006) (example of irreconcilable statutory conflict requiring harmonization)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (courts must presume fit parents act in child's best interests)
Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) (legal presumption that parents act in children's best interests)