Foster parent rights: Abuse intervention focus in one of two cases before CO Supreme Court

Categories: News

Thumbnail image for rocky mountain childrens law center.jpg
Earlier this week, we told you the story of a little boy in Montezuma County who suffered horrible abuse in his parents' care and was placed with a foster family. That family eventually intervened in the court case to terminate the parents' rights, offering information and cross-examining witnesses. On Thursday, the Colorado Supreme Court heard arguments about whether that intervention was proper.

Foster parents "have an ulterior motive," said attorney Jon Kelly, who represents the biological father of the boy, who's now four years old. Attorneys for both biological parents and Montezuma County argued that allowing foster parents to become parties in a termination case sets up a custody battle.

"They are there to go after the parents," attorney Tom Williamson, who represents the biological mother, said of foster parents. They do that by "dog-piling" the biological parents with questions meant to chip away at their credibility, he said, which isn't fair.

In this case, the boy's guardian ad litem, an attorney chosen to represent his best interests in court, filed the motion to terminate the parents' rights after the parents repeatedly failed to keep the child safe. The foster parents intervened, which means they became parties to the case. State law says that foster parents or relatives who've had a child in their care for more than three months can intervene in court if they have "information or knowledge concerning the care and protection of the child."

But the parties disagree on what "intervene" means. Attorneys for the county and the biological parents cede that foster parents should be allowed to offer information and testify about the child at hearings. But they don't think foster parents should be allowed to hire their own attorneys and ask questions of other witnesses.

Chief Justice Michael Bender inquired if the foster parents' attorney asked any questions that the guardian ad litem could not have asked, thereby influencing the outcome. No, Williamson said, but some of the questions they did ask were "repetitive."

Tim Eirich, who represented the foster parents, says intervention isn't about fighting over custody. He quoted the trial judge when he said, "The important thing is that we get a full disclosure of all of the facts." Intervention helps make that possible, he argued.

The Supreme Court also heard another case regarding the rights of foster parents. That case involves a foster child who was removed from a foster home without explanation. The court will consider whether foster parents who've bonded with a child have a right to be further involved in that child's life -- and his or her court case.

More from our Follow That Story archive: "Ward Churchill's CU rehiring bid reaches Colorado Supreme Court."

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

@Sammie Jones- you are ignorant. Foster parents pay out more than they are paid. If a foster parent has a child for any length of time, they absolutely have the right to the child. And if they only looked at this child as income, they would not have hired their own attorney. Get the facts before you pass a judgment to which you have no right. Perhaps you had a child taken because you were a terrible parent. Did you not read this story. This child had multiple fractures and endured abuse at the hands of his parents. If it weren't for families like this foster family, these children would still be suffering. I imagine its hard to have a child put in your home, you provide financial and emotional support, bond with the child and then are told, by the way, we are going to put him back with his abusive parents and there is nothing you can do about it. I know I would have done the exact same thing. I commend these foster parents for taking action and loving this child. For the first time the boys knows someone loves him enough to fight for him. To protect him. Like I said, you are ignorant.

Sammie Jones
Sammie Jones

Foster "parents" should have absolutely no rights to a child. These people respond to ads that say, "Do you need a second income? Try fostering a child!" and they want to somehow claim they have rights to the child? Here's a question: Would you have taken in a child if money hadn't been offered? Would you have done it out of the goodness of your heart? Most of them would say "yes", but the answer is actually "no". It's obvious the answer is "no" because they did not offer to take in a foster child until they learned they would be paid for it. These people don't deserve to have any child, let alone one of the most vulnerable children in the country. This entire children for sale business needs to end. Any and all cash incentives need to be removed not only for foster parents, but for the agency too. They receive more money per month per child if the child is "special needs". This is why so many foster kids are drugged with psychotropic meds that usually aren't safe for kids. The entire foster system needs drastic reform NOW. It's a disgusting, line-you-pockets mess.

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault