The Colorado Supreme Court agreed to review a Court of Appeals decision that could reshape how Colorado handles child dependency and neglect cases, granting certiorari in *The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Minor Child: H.L.B., and H.L.B., and Concerning A.S.* (No. 25SC721).
The high court will examine whether the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied existing precedent when it determined that less drastic alternatives to removing children from their homes need not be "currently available" to be considered by trial courts. The case stems from Court of Appeals Case No. 24CA1786, decided in 2024.
At the center of the legal dispute is the application of *People in Interest of A.M. v. T.M.* (2021 CO 14, 480 P.3d 682), a Colorado Supreme Court precedent that addresses how courts should evaluate less drastic alternatives in child welfare proceedings. The Court of Appeals' interpretation of this precedent has raised questions about whether it conflicts with the primary goal of securing permanency for children involved in the dependency and neglect process.
The certiorari petition, filed by the People of the State of Colorado and H.L.B., argued that the Court of Appeals determined a question of substance that has not yet been resolved by the state's highest court. Specifically, the petitioners challenged the appellate court's ruling that alternatives to child removal need not be "currently available" for courts to consider them when making placement decisions.
The Colorado Supreme Court has reframed the certified question to focus on "whether the division erred in its application of *People in Interest of A.M. v. T.M.*, concerning less drastic alternatives, contrary to the goal of securing permanency for children involved in the dependency and neglect process."
This reframing suggests the court is particularly concerned with how the Court of Appeals' interpretation might undermine efforts to achieve stable, permanent placements for children in the state's custody. The dependency and neglect process is designed to protect children while working toward reunification with parents or other permanent solutions when reunification is not possible.
The *A.M. v. T.M.* precedent established important guidelines for how Colorado courts should evaluate whether less restrictive alternatives to removing children from their homes have been adequately considered. Under Colorado law, courts must generally explore options that would allow children to remain with their families or in less restrictive settings before ordering more drastic interventions.
The current case involves minor child H.L.B. and concerns an individual identified only as A.S., following typical court practice of using initials to protect the privacy of minors and families involved in dependency proceedings. The specific facts of the underlying case that led to this appeal have not been detailed in the certiorari grant.
While the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari on the central question regarding less drastic alternatives, it denied review of all other issues raised in the petition. This selective grant suggests the court views the question of alternative placement standards as particularly important for establishing clear statewide precedent.
The decision to hear this case reflects ongoing challenges in Colorado's child welfare system, where courts must balance the immediate safety needs of children with the goal of preserving family units whenever possible. The interpretation of when alternatives must be "currently available" could significantly impact how social workers, attorneys, and judges approach case planning and decision-making in dependency proceedings.
Child welfare advocates have long emphasized the importance of exploring all possible options before removing children from their homes, as separation can cause trauma even when necessary for safety. However, courts also face practical constraints in terms of available resources and services that might serve as alternatives to removal.
The Supreme Court's review will provide guidance to trial courts statewide about how to interpret and apply the less drastic alternative requirement. The ruling could affect thousands of cases annually in Colorado's dependency and neglect system, potentially influencing everything from initial removal decisions to ongoing case planning.
The case is scheduled for the 2026 term, with oral arguments expected later in the year. The court's decision will establish binding precedent for all Colorado courts handling dependency and neglect matters, providing clarity on a question that has generated different interpretations at the trial and appellate levels.
This review represents the Colorado Supreme Court's continued attention to child welfare jurisprudence, following several recent decisions aimed at improving outcomes for children and families involved in the dependency system while maintaining necessary protections for child safety.