994 P.2d 476 (Colo.App. 1999), 98CA2418, Matter of the Petition of A.L.B.
|Citation:||994 P.2d 476|
|Opinion Judge:||RULAND Judge.|
|Party Name:||The People of the State of Colorado, In the Matter of the Petition of: A.L.B., Petitioner, For the Relinquishment of a Child, B.L.B., and Concerning J.W.R., Respondent-Appellant, and Adoptions: Advocacy & Alternatives, a Colorado non-profit corporation, and John and Mary Does, Intervenors-Appellees.|
|Attorney:||No Appearance for Petitioner, Deborah L. Getz, Severance, Colorado, for Respondent-Appellant No Appearance for Petitioner Deborah L. Getz, Severance, Colorado, for Respondent-Appellant W. Troy Hause, Greeley, Colorado; Lamm, Freeman and Butler, Julia M. Knearl, Louisville, Colorado; Houtchens, D...|
|Case Date:||November 26, 1999|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Colorado, Second Division|
Appeal from the District Court of Larimer County Honorable James H. Hiatt, Judge No. 98JR11
J.W.R. (father) appeals from the judgment terminating the parent-child legal relationship with his son, B.L.B. We affirm.
Mother and father were not married. Prior to the child's birth, they decided that they were not ready to assume the responsibilities of parenthood. Accordingly, both parents requested adoption and relinquishment counseling from Adoptions: Advocacy & Alternatives (AAA), a licensed child placement agency. As part of the counseling, mother and father selected a couple (the Does) to adopt the child. Three weeks before the child was born, however, the paternal grandmother informed mother that she and her husband wanted to parent the child.
Following the child's birth, mother filed a petition in the Weld County district court for relinquishment together with a petition to terminate father's parental rights. The petition for relinquishment alleged that AAA had custody of the child. Shortly thereafter, John and Mary Doe, who had assumed physical custody of the child upon his release from the hospital, filed a petition for termination of father's parental rights in the Weld County proceeding.
During this same period, father initiated a child custody proceeding in Larimer County.
Venue of the Weld County case was later transferred to the Larimer County District Court. AAA then filed a petition to terminate father's parental rights in the Larimer County proceeding. The paternal and maternal grandmothers and the Does all filed motions to intervene.
The district court entered an order allowing the Does to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to §19-5-105(3.6), C.R.S. 1999. However, the court denied the grandmothers' motions. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the petition to terminate, finding that the criteria for termination set forth in §19-5-105, C.R.S. 1999, had been established by clear and convincing evidence.
Father contends that the order of termination must be reversed for a number of procedural reasons. First, he claims that mother's petition for termination filed in Weld County was defective. Second, he asserts that he did not receive notice of an emergency ex parte hearing held in Weld County. Finally, he...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP