The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday took the unusual step of modifying its recent ruling in a child neglect case, explicitly rejecting a mother's claim that her procedural rights were violated in the welfare proceedings.
In January, the court decided that when the government proves a child suffers a single serious bodily injury, even if the parent did not cause it, judges may find that no treatment plan would address the parent's deficiencies. Such a finding in dependency and neglect cases, as child welfare proceedings are formally known, could eventually lead to the termination of a parent's legal relationship with their child.
Initially, the mother's attorney decried the decision in People in the Interest of L.S. for placing parents on a path to termination without any proof they caused a serious injury to their child.
"The Supreme Court's far-reaching decision has taken off any due process or procedural brakes for parents who find themselves in a nightmare scenario where their children are seriously injured," said Ruchi Kapoor, who represents the mother of the child identified as L.S.
The Office of Respondent Parents' Counsel, which represents indigent parents, also labeled the decision "unacceptable and unconstitutional."
Now, the Supreme Court has pushed back against that criticism.
"Furthermore, contrary to Mother’s assertions, our interpretation does not violate her right to procedural due process," wrote Justice William W. Hood III in a new section of the opinion, added in response to a request for reconsideration. The mother "has been provided, and will continue to receive, notice and an opportunity to be heard."
In the underlying case, 1-year-old L.S. went to the hospital for bruising and fractured bones, prompting Arapahoe County to initiate child neglect proceedings. The mother claimed the government failed to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that L.S. had a serious bodily injury, and disputed whether such an injury alone could lead a judge to conclude a treatment plan did not exist to make the mother fit.
District Court Judge Don J. Toussaint ruled that although L.S. had a serious bodily injury, the injury by itself "is not evidence that no treatment plan can be devised."
The Supreme Court reversed Toussaint's decision, noting the law allows judges to decide a serious bodily injury may indicate a parent will not become fit with a treatment plan. In its revised opinion on March 6, the justices elaborated that it makes no difference the law does not require proof L.S.'s mother caused his serious bodily injury.
"The statute contains no language regarding causation, and we cannot add words to the statute that aren’t there," Hood wrote.
The court also emphasized that its decision did not ensure the mother would have her relationship with L.S. terminated, as Toussaint has the discretion to decide an appropriate treatment plan exists after all.
"Mother is entitled to cross-examine the state’s witnesses and put on witnesses of her own, including an expert, paid for by the state," Hood wrote about a potential termination hearing. "After considering the state’s and Mother’s evidence, the court may terminate parental rights if it finds that all statutory requirements have been established by clear and convincing evidence."
Kapoor, the attorney for the mother, declined to comment on the court's added reasoning and conclusions.
Executive director Chris Henderson of the Office of the Child's Representative, which provides legal representation to children, pointed out that Hood had inserted references to prior cases that require judges to consider a child's "physical, mental and emotional needs" in their decisions.
"The modified opinion does not change the outcome of this case and makes even more clear that the Court’s decision is not creating new law," Henderson said. "At OCR, we believe that this continued emphasis on children’s needs is imperative and are glad the Court included that."
