Background
Mesa County filed a dependency-or-neglect petition based on concerns about J.C.’s substance use. Mother did not contest the petition, the juvenile court adjudicated J.G.C. dependent or neglected, and the court adopted a treatment plan.
Mother later identified M.H. as a possible father. The Department attempted to locate contact information for him, then amended the petition to add John Doe as father, served John Doe by publication, and obtained an adjudication as to him. The juvenile court subsequently terminated the parents’ parental rights after an evidentiary hearing, finding no less drastic alternative to termination.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. It declined to review mother’s argument that the juvenile court should have considered placement with M.H. or his relatives as a less drastic alternative because mother had not preserved that issue. Her questioning about a possible allocation of parental responsibilities with the foster placement did not alert the juvenile court to a request for placement with M.H. or his family, and she did not seek that relief.
The court also held that mother lacked standing to assert that the Department inadequately investigated M.H. or violated his due-process and statutory rights as a potential father. A parent generally cannot litigate another parent’s or potential parent’s rights in a dependency-or-neglect appeal. Mother’s proposed alternative placement theory depended on vindicating M.H.’s alleged rights.
Key Takeaways
- A party must present a proposed less drastic alternative to the juvenile court and request relief to preserve the issue for appeal.
- Questioning about one possible alternative placement does not preserve a separate argument involving an unraised potential parent or that person’s relatives.
- A parent generally lacks standing to challenge alleged violations of another parent’s or potential parent’s rights.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that termination challenges must be concretely raised in the juvenile court. Arguments based on a possible parent or relative placement cannot be introduced for the first time on appeal.
It also confirms that a parent cannot use another potential parent’s alleged procedural or constitutional rights as the basis to reverse termination of the parent’s own legal relationship with the child.