Introduction

M.S. and S.S. v. The People of Colorado is a pivotal case decided by the Supreme Court of Colorado on June 10, 2013. The case examines whether preadoptive foster parents possess a constitutionally protected liberty interest in their relationship with a foster child, thereby necessitating due process protections before the child can be removed. The petitioners, M.S. and S.S., sought to retain custody of A.C., a minor child, challenging the removal executed by the Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS) without prior notice or a hearing.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the preadoptive foster parents did not possess a constitutionally protected liberty interest in their relationship with the child. Consequently, because no such liberty interest existed, there was no prima facie case for a due process violation regarding the removal of the child without prior notice or a hearing. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this determination.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Judgment extensively discusses several key precedents:

• Thelen v. Catholic Social Serv. (E.D. Wis. 1988): Established that prospective adoptive parents who have undertaken significant steps towards adoption may possess a limited liberty interest.
• RIVERA v. MARCUS (2d Cir. 1982): Addressed custodial relatives' rights but was deemed not directly applicable to preadoptive foster parents.
• Elwell v. Byers (10th Cir. 2012): Affirmed that in specific circumstances, preadoptive foster parents may have a protected liberty interest.
• WHITESIDE v. SMITH (Colo. 2003): Discussed procedural and substantive due process under the U.S. Constitution.
• Bd. of Regents v. Roth (U.S. 1972): Clarified that procedural due process protections apply only when a constitutional liberty or property interest is at stake.

The court differentiated the present case from Thelen and Elwell by emphasizing that the foster parents in M.S. and S.S. had not initiated the adoption process, thereby lacking a reasonable expectation of permanency.

Legal Reasoning

The court approached the issue by first determining whether the foster parents had a constitutionally protected liberty interest under Colorado state law or the U.S. Constitution:

• Under State Law: The court found that the Colorado dependency and neglect statutes were procedural rather than substantive. Since the foster parents had not initiated adoption proceedings, they did not have a substantive interest that would warrant due process protections.
• Under the U.S. Constitution: The court concluded that there was no recognized liberty interest for preadoptive foster parents beyond natural and adoptive parents. Without such an interest, procedural due process protections were not triggered.

The court meticulously examined whether the foster parents' expectations and the statutory framework conferred a liberty interest but ultimately determined that they did not meet the necessary criteria.

Impact

This Judgment establishes a clear precedent that preadoptive foster parents, who have not formally initiated the adoption process, do not possess a constitutionally protected liberty interest in their foster relationships. This decision underscores the paramount importance of the child's best interests over the foster parents' expectations, potentially simplifying future dependency and neglect proceedings by clarifying the scope of due process protections required.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Liberty Interest

A liberty interest refers to the fundamental rights protected by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, including the right to personal autonomy and family relationships. In this context, it determines whether foster parents have a stake in the foster child’s custody that requires due process before any governmental action can alter that relationship.

Procedural vs. Substantive Due Process

Procedural due process ensures fair procedures when the government seeks to deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property. Substantive due process protects certain fundamental rights from government interference, regardless of the procedures used. This case primarily examines procedural due process in the context of a potential liberty interest.

Permanency Plan

A permanency plan is a court-ordered strategy aimed at providing long-term stability for a child in the child welfare system. This can include adoption, reunification with biological parents, or guardianship. In this case, the plan identified the foster parents as prospective adoptive parents, though no formal adoption proceedings had commenced.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Colorado's decision in M.S. and S.S. v. The People of Colorado reinforces the legal distinction between typical foster care placements and formal adoption processes. By determining that preadoptive foster parents without initiated adoption procedures do not hold a constitutionally protected liberty interest, the court emphasizes that the child's best interests and safety remain paramount. This decision provides clarity for future dependency and neglect cases, ensuring that procedural due process is appropriately applied only when a legitimate constitutional interest is present.

Legal practitioners and foster parents alike must recognize that substantive steps toward adoption are crucial in establishing any potential liberty interest. This case serves as a guiding precedent in balancing the rights of foster parents with the overarching duty to protect and prioritize the welfare of the child.