People ex rel. K.L.W.

• Decision Date: 22 April 2021
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals No. 20CA1387
• Citation: 2021 COA 56,492 P.3d 392
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Appellee, IN the INTEREST OF K.L.W. and J.L.W., Children, and Concerning C.L.F., Appellant, and J.C., Appellee.

492 P.3d 392

2021 COA 56

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Appellee, IN the INTEREST OF K.L.W. and J.L.W., Children, and Concerning C.L.F., Appellant, and J.C., Appellee.

Court of Appeals No. 20CA1387

Colorado Court of Appeals, Division II.

Announced April 22, 2021

Barry Meinster, Guardian Ad Litem

Victor T. Owens, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Parker, Colorado, for Appellant

Dodd Law, P.C., Debra W. Dodd, Berthoud, Colorado, for Appellee J.C.

Opinion by JUDGE ROMÁN

¶ 1 In this dependency and neglect proceeding, the juvenile court had to decide who should be declared the legal parents of two children, K.L.W. and J.L.W. No one disputes that the children's biological mother is their parent, but the issue is who should be the children's other parent — C.L.F., who had previously been in a relationship with mother, or J.C., the children's biological father. The juvenile court named biological father as the legal parent, and C.L.F. appeals from the court's determination.

¶ 2 We must first decide whether the juvenile court was right when it determined that the children could not have three legal parents. We conclude that it reached the right decision because Colorado's Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) does not allow a court to recognize more than two legal parents for a child.

¶ 3 We also reject C.L.F.’s challenges to the parentage determination. The court properly considered the children's best interests and other pertinent factors in making its determination. And, while the court did not apply the proper standard of proof when weighing the competing parentage presumptions, this oversight does not require reversal under the circumstances of this case. As a result, we affirm the judgment.

I. The Dependency and Neglect Case

¶ 4 In March 2019, the Denver Department of Human Services learned that the children's mother was struggling with mental health issues and had started a fire in her home while the children were present. After conducting an initial assessment, the Department was unable to locate mother and the children. A few months later, the Department received a report that mother had committed domestic violence against C.L.F., who helped care for the children. Mother was also responsible for a fire that had rendered C.L.F.’s home unlivable.

¶ 5 Accordingly, in June 2019, the Department initiated a dependency and neglect proceeding concerning the nine-month-old twin children. The juvenile court granted custody of the children to the Department for placement with their maternal grandmother.

¶ 6 Less than two months later, C.L.F. filed a motion to declare her the mother of the children instead of recognizing father as the children's legal parent. In support of her motion, she asserted that she was listed as a parent on the children's birth certificates and had held the children out as her own.

¶ 7 Meanwhile, the court adjudicated the children dependent and neglected in relation to mother and adopted a treatment plan for her. It authorized the Department to serve father by publication. When father did not appear, the court entered a default adjudicatory and treatment plan order.

¶ 8 C.L.F. later began caring for the children in conjunction with the grandmother. And once father appeared in the case in January 2020, the court authorized him to have visits with the children.

¶ 9 In July 2020, the juvenile court held a contested hearing to decide the issue of parentage between C.L.F. and father.¹ The court determined that C.L.F. was a presumptive parent because she had held the children out as her own and father was a presumptive parent because genetic tests established that he was the children's biological parent. However, the court concluded that it was unable to recognize more than two legal parents for the children. And, after making further findings, it ultimately declared father the children's legal parent.

¶ 10 C.L.F. appealed the parentage determination. After she obtained a C.R.C.P. 54(b) order from the juvenile court certifying the parentage determination as final for purposes of appeal, this court permitted the appeal to proceed.

II. Parent-Child Relationships Under the UPA

¶ 11 To start, we address C.L.F.’s contention that the juvenile court erred by holding that the children could not have more than two legal parents. We disagree.

A. Standard of Review and Statutory Interpretation

¶ 12 Whether the UPA authorizes a court to declare more than two legal parents for a child is a question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo. See People in Interest of M.B. , 2020 COA 13, ¶ 40, 459 P.3d 766 (recognizing that the interpretation of the UPA, like that of any statute, is de novo).

¶ 13 In construing a statute, we look at the entire statutory scheme "in order to give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of its parts, and we apply words and phrases in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings." People in Interest of L.M. , 2018 CO 34, ¶ 13, 416 P.3d 875 (quoting UMB Bank, N.A. v. Landmark Towers Ass'n , 2017 CO 107, ¶ 22, 408 P.3d 836 ). We do not interpret a statute in a way that would render parts of it meaningless or absurd. People in Interest of C.L.S. , 313 P.3d 662, 666 (Colo. App. 2011). And, if the statute's language is clear and we can discern the legislature's intent with certainty, we do not resort to other rules of statutory interpretation. Id.

B. Applicability of the UPA

¶ 14 A parentage proceeding may be joined with a dependency and neglect proceeding. People in Interest of J.G.C. , 2013 COA 171, ¶ 10, 318 P.3d 576. However, it is governed by the provisions of the UPA. Id. at ¶ 11 ; see also In re Support of E.K. , 2013 COA 99, ¶ 9, 410 P.3d 480.

¶ 15 The purpose of the UPA is to establish and protect the parent-child relationship. In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning A.R.L. , 2013 COA 170, ¶ 18, 318 P.3d 581. Indeed, the outcome of a parentage proceeding is extraordinarily important because it determines who a child's legal parent will be, and, thus, who will enjoy the rights and responsibilities of legal parenthood. N.A.H. v. S.L.S. , 9 P.3d 354, 359 (Colo. 2000).

¶ 16 The parent-child relationship encompasses both a mother and child relationship as well as a father and child relationship. A.R.L. , ¶ 19 ; § 19-4-102, C.R.S. 2020. Under the UPA, a person is presumed to be the natural parent of a child if genetic tests show that he or she is not excluded as the probable parent and that the probability of his or her parentage is ninety-seven percent or higher. § 19-4-105(1)(f), C.R.S. 2020.

¶ 17 Still, establishing parentage under the UPA is not limited to those persons who have a biological connection to a child. A.R.L. , ¶ 19 ; see also N.A.H. , 9 P.3d at 360-62 (recognizing that biology is not conclusive in establishing parentage under the UPA). Rather, the UPA also allows a person to prove parentage based on other factors set forth in section 19-4-105.² A.R.L. , ¶ 19. As pertinent here, section 19-4-105(1)(d) provides that a person is presumed to be the parent of a child if he or she receives the child into his or her home and openly holds out the child as his or her natural child.

C. Procedure for Determining Parentage

¶ 18 C.L.F. correctly points out that the UPA does not contain express language prohibiting a child from having more than two legal parents. Even so, the UPA mandates specific procedures that must be followed when a party seeks to establish parentage. E.K. , ¶ 9.

¶ 19 Once a court determines which parentage presumptions apply, it must then determine whether any presumptions have been rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. C.L.S. , 313 P.3d at 666. Significantly, a parentage presumption is rebutted by a court decree establishing parentage of the child by another person. § 19-4-105(2)(a).

¶ 20 The next step in the process occurs when, as here, two or more conflicting presumptions of parentage arise under the UPA, and none has been rebutted. In these circumstances, the UPA provides a mechanism to choose among competing presumptions.

N.A.H. , 9 P.3d at 360. The UPA requires the court to resolve the competing presumptions and adjudicate parentage of the child. § 19-4-105(2)(a). The plain language of section 19-4-105(2)(a) is mandatory — the court must weigh two or more conflicting parentage presumptions and determine which controls. See N.A.H. , 9 P.3d at 360.

¶ 21 These provisions mean that a child is limited to having just two legal parents. Indeed, the result of this process is to render one of the people with a conflicting parentage presumption the child's parent while the other presumptive parent becomes a nonparent who does not have the same rights as a parent to visit a child or to make decisions about the child's education, health, or upbringing. See M.B. , ¶ 43 ; C.L.S. , 313 P.3d at 667. To be sure, a nonparent may have standing to pursue an allocation of parental responsibilities for a child in certain circumstances. See § 14-10-123(1), C.R.S. 2020; In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning M.W. , 2012 COA 162, ¶ 12, 292 P.3d 1158. But a parental responsibilities dispute between a parent and a nonparent is not a contest between equals. M.W. , ¶ 13.

¶ 22 If, on the other hand, the legislature had intended to allow the possibility of a child having more than two legal parents, section 19-4-105(2)(a) would not require the court to always determine which competing parentage presumption should control. Nor would it provide that a parentage presumption is necessarily rebutted by a prior parentage decree determining that another person is the child's parent. Instead, it would have provided a standard for a court to employ when tasked with deciding whether to recognize more than two legal parents for a child in these circumstances.

¶ 23 For example, in 2017, the Uniform Law Commission drafted a uniform parentage act that does just that. See Unif. Parentage Act (Nat'l Conf. of Comm'rs on Unif. State L. 2017), https://perma.cc/2UM4-GF7V. The section...