The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to review a critical question that could reshape how the state handles child welfare cases, specifically whether courts must require that alternatives to removing children from their homes be immediately available before ordering separation.
The high court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in *The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Minor Child: H.L.B.*, Case No. 25SC721, on Feb. 2. The case stems from a Court of Appeals decision, Case No. 24CA1786, that addressed when less drastic alternatives to child removal must be considered in dependency and neglect proceedings.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the Colorado Court of Appeals correctly determined that a "less drastic alternative" to removing a child from their home need not be "currently available" for courts to consider it as an option. This interpretation could significantly impact how dependency and neglect cases are resolved throughout Colorado.
The Supreme Court reframed the central question as whether the appeals court erred in applying *People in Interest of A.M. v. T.M.*, 2021 CO 14, 480 P.3d 682, a precedent concerning less drastic alternatives that runs contrary to securing permanency for children in the dependency and neglect system.
The case involves minor child H.L.B. and concerns A.S., though the court record provides limited details about the specific circumstances that led to the dependency proceedings. The matter reached the state's highest court after the Court of Appeals issued its decision interpreting the availability requirement for alternative placements or services.
Colorado's dependency and neglect system operates under the principle that children should remain with their families whenever possible, but courts must balance family preservation with child safety and the need for permanent living situations. The "less drastic alternative" standard requires courts to consider whether options short of removal from the home could adequately protect a child's welfare.
The 2021 *A.M. v. T.M.* decision established important precedent for how courts should evaluate these alternatives. The current case appears to challenge how that precedent has been applied, particularly regarding the timing and availability of alternative services or placements.
The question of whether alternatives must be "currently available" versus theoretically possible has practical implications for children, families, and the courts. If alternatives need not be immediately available, courts might delay removal while services are developed or placements are found. Conversely, requiring current availability could lead to more immediate removals when suitable alternatives don't exist at the time of the hearing.
This tension reflects a broader challenge in child welfare law between two competing priorities. Family preservation advocates argue that keeping families together should be the primary goal, with removal only as a last resort when no other options exist. Child welfare advocates emphasize that children need stable, permanent homes and that prolonged uncertainty while pursuing alternatives can be harmful.
The Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari indicates the justices view this as a question of substantial importance that has not been definitively resolved. The court denied certiorari on all other issues raised in the petition, focusing specifically on the less drastic alternative question.
The case comes at a time when Colorado, like many states, faces ongoing challenges in its child welfare system. Courts regularly grapple with decisions about when to remove children from homes and what alternatives might be available to ensure their safety while preserving family relationships.
Dependency and neglect proceedings involve multiple parties, including the state, parents or guardians, and often court-appointed advocates for the children. These cases require courts to make difficult decisions based on evidence about a child's safety, the parents' ability to provide adequate care, and the availability of services that might address identified problems.
The timing requirement for less drastic alternatives could affect case timelines and outcomes. If courts must wait for alternatives to become available, cases might be prolonged, potentially leaving children in unstable situations. If courts can proceed without currently available alternatives, they might remove children even when services could eventually address the underlying issues.
The Supreme Court's review will likely examine how the Court of Appeals interpreted existing precedent and whether that interpretation conflicts with the state's goals for child permanency. The court will need to balance the competing interests of family preservation and child welfare while providing clear guidance for trial courts handling these sensitive cases.
Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled, and the court has not indicated when it expects to issue its opinion. The decision will be closely watched by family law practitioners, child welfare advocates, and courts throughout Colorado as it will establish binding precedent for handling similar cases statewide.
The outcome could affect how quickly children achieve permanent living situations and how extensively courts must explore alternatives before making removal decisions. Whatever the court decides, the ruling will provide crucial guidance for balancing Colorado's commitment to family preservation with its obligation to ensure child safety and permanency.