T.W. v. M.C, 2015 CO 72

Background

Twins (Baby A and Baby B) were born in Colorado; birth mother J.Z. told father M.C. she miscarried, then relinquished parental rights and provided false father ID to adoption agency. Adoptive parents T.W. and A.W. adopted the twins and finalized adoption before M.C. learned he was the father.
M.C. discovered he was the biological father after genetic testing and obtained relief from the default termination judgment under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(2); the trial court voided the earlier termination due to the birth mother’s fraud and restored M.C.’s parental rights.
The trial court held a two-day bench trial under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-5-105 to decide whether to terminate M.C.’s restored parental rights; a guardian ad litem and experts reported the children were securely attached to the adoptive parents.
Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that M.C. had not “promptly taken substantial parental responsibility” (relying principally on a single $250 child-support payment) and that removal would cause significant psychological harm; it terminated M.C.’s parental rights and awarded custody to T.W. and A.W.
The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court failed to afford the Troxel presumption (special weight to parental decisions) and misapplied § 19-5-105; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issues

Issue	M.C. (Plaintiff) Argument	Adoptive Parents / State (Defendant) Argument	Held
Whether Troxel’s presumption (special weight for fit parents) applies and was applied	Troxel requires courts to accord special weight to a parent’s decision and identify special factors before overruling that decision; trial court failed to do so	Trial court applied a presumption favoring biological parent and made statutory findings under § 19-5-105 by clear and convincing evidence	Trial: Troxel’s requirements were satisfied; court applied presumption and statutory findings overcame it; CO Supreme Court rejects COA’s Troxel-based reversal
Whether § 19-5-105 provides adequate procedural protection for parental liberty interests	Troxel’s special-weight requirement demands additional procedural protection beyond statutory scheme	§ 19-5-105 mandates specific factual findings and clear-and-convincing standard, which constitute the "special factors" and satisfy Troxel/Santosky	Held: § 19-5-105, together with the presumption, satisfies due process
Whether trial court abused discretion by considering only M.C.’s single $250 payment in finding failure to take "substantial responsibility"	M.C.: other expenditures (travel, gifts, litigation costs) and the parties’ dispute over disclosure of adoptive parents’ finances excuse/mitigate nonpayment; court should consider likelihood of future support	Adoptive parents: statute requires support "according to that parent’s means"; non-support is properly evaluated by whether payments were regular/reasonable for child’s care	Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion — one $250 payment in ~3 months was neither regular nor reasonable; travel/litigation costs and visit-related purchases are not direct ongoing child support
Whether termination is in children’s best interests given attachment to adoptive parents	M.C.: biological-parent custody and future commitment outweigh disruption; trial court should have considered forward-looking likelihood of support	Adoptive parents: twins are securely attached; removal would likely cause significant psychological harm; continuity favors adoptive custody	Held: Clear and convincing evidence supported termination and awarding custody to adoptive parents because of strong attachment and likely psychological harm from removal

Key Cases Cited

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (plurality opinion establishing presumption that fit parents act in children's best interests and requiring special weight to parental decisions)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental-rights termination requires clear and convincing evidence to satisfy due process)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (recognizing fundamental liberty interest of parents in custody of children)
Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform, 431 U.S. 816 (U.S. 1977) (importance of familial relationships and attachments in custody matters)
In re Custody of C.C.R.S., 892 P.2d 246 (Colo. 1995) (recognizing presumption that biological parent has first and prior right to custody)
People ex rel. A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1982) (Colorado adoption of clear and convincing standard in termination proceedings)
People ex rel. A.J.L., 243 P.3d 244 (Colo. 2010) (termination of parental rights is a decision of paramount gravity)