## Facts

- Miquela Reina Daugaard was born extremely premature on October 3, 1968, weighing about two pounds, eleven ounces, and remained hospitalized in an incubator until late November 1968.
- After discharge, and on a physician’s recommendation, the mother placed the infant with a registered nurse for care until January 16, 1969.
- From January 16 to April 1969, the child was in the mother’s care.
- In April 1969, due to the mother’s emotional and physical difficulties, she arranged for friends Donald and Geraldine Kellogg to care for the child temporarily until she recovered.
- In December 1969, the mother sought the child’s return and offered to reimburse the Kelloggs for expenses; the Kelloggs refused and filed a dependency and neglect petition.
- The petition alleged statutory grounds including abandonment, lack of proper parental care through parental acts or omissions, and failure or refusal to provide proper subsistence or medical care.
- The trial court adjudicated the child dependent and neglected, found that the child suffered from marasmus while in the mother’s care and that the condition was caused by the mother’s acts or omissions, terminated the mother’s parental rights, and awarded custody to the Kelloggs.
- Evidence showed the mother was employed, of good character, had successfully raised two older children, and there was no evidence she was unfit to parent.
- Medical testimony supporting marasmus and causation was uncertain and did not establish with reasonable medical certainty that the child had marasmus during the relevant period or that the mother’s conduct caused the condition.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial, competent evidence supported adjudicating the child “dependent or neglected” under the Colorado Children’s Code on theories of inadequate parental care and alleged marasmus attributable to the mother.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to justify terminating the mother’s parental rights and awarding custody to third parties.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the dependency/neglect adjudication and termination of the mother’s parental rights.
- The court declined to decide asserted procedural deficiencies and resolved the case on evidentiary sufficiency.
- The court held the record lacked substantial, competent evidence supporting abandonment or failure to provide subsistence/medical care, and the trial court made no findings on those theories.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to prove the child suffered from marasmus due to the mother’s acts or omissions; expert testimony was speculative and equivocal on diagnosis and causation.
- The court remanded with directions to dismiss the petition and return custody of the child to the mother.

## Legal Principles

- A dependency/neglect adjudication must rest on substantial, competent evidence supporting the statutory ground(s) relied upon.
- Allegations not supported by evidence, and theories on which the trial court makes no findings, cannot sustain a dependency/neglect judgment or termination order.
- Termination of parental rights requires strong evidentiary support of parental fault; speculative or uncertain expert opinions about a child’s medical condition and causation are insufficient.
- A parent’s use of medical professionals and temporary caretakers to secure proper care during illness may support, rather than undermine, parental fitness absent evidence of neglectful acts or omissions.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the state and petitioners failed to prove, with substantial competent evidence, that the mother abandoned the child or caused harm through neglectful acts or omissions; because the evidentiary record did not justify declaring the child dependent and neglected or terminating parental rights, the judgment was reversed and custody was ordered returned to the mother.


Daugaard v. People, 176 Colo. 38, 488 P.2d 1101 (Colo. 1971)