Background
Larimer County initiated this dependency-and-neglect case in 2022 concerning H.M., then nine. The petition alleged that father failed to protect her from stepmother’s physical abuse and that mother, who lived in Montana, had abandoned her. After adjudication, the juvenile court adopted treatment plans and H.M. was eventually placed in foster care.
The Department sought to allocate parental responsibilities to a family friend who had adopted one of mother’s older children. Mother sought custody herself, and father sought H.M.’s return to his and stepmother’s home. After a six-day hearing, the juvenile court awarded parental responsibilities to the family friend, while ordering continuing contact for both parents.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the juvenile court did not reversibly err by conditioning a proposed 2024 trial placement with mother in Montana on approval of an ICPC home study. Although People in Interest of O.J.R. established that the ICPC does not apply to an out-of-state parent, the court could use conditions resembling an ICPC approval to protect H.M.’s safety during a temporary placement. The later APR decision also rested on the circumstances existing at the final hearing, not speculation about how an earlier trial placement might have gone.
The court further held that the juvenile court properly applied the Troxel presumption in mother’s favor but found clear and convincing evidence of compelling reasons and special factors supporting placement with the family friend. Those reasons included unresolved safety concerns involving mother’s household, unmet medical, dental, educational, and specialized-service needs of children in that home, and mother’s inconsistent contact with H.M. Father’s challenges to the CASA’s expert testimony and the Department’s reunification efforts were unpreserved; the record also supported the finding that father had not protected H.M. from stepmother.
Key Takeaways
- An ICPC approval is not required for placement with an out-of-state parent, but a juvenile court may impose safety-related conditions on a trial placement.
- A fit parent’s Troxel presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that a nonparent placement better serves the child’s interests.
- Appellate challenges to expert testimony and reasonable reunification efforts must be specifically preserved in the juvenile court.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that an earlier finding of parental fitness does not compel a later custody allocation to that parent. In a dependency case, the court must assess the child’s current best interests and may find compelling reasons for a nonparent APR where the record shows concerns about the parent’s ability to meet the child’s particular needs.
It also clarifies that O.J.R. does not prevent agencies or courts from seeking out-of-state safety information; it only means the ICPC itself does not govern a custody placement with an out-of-state parent.