## Facts

- L.L., the biological mother of two minor children, was incarcerated in 1994 on a drug-related conviction; the children’s father was also incarcerated.
- While L.L. was incarcerated, the district court placed the children in the temporary custody of their maternal grandmother.
- After L.L.’s release, the county department of human services initiated dependency and neglect proceedings; the court placed the children in the department’s legal custody and adjudicated them dependent and neglected.
- The children were later placed with foster parents after the grandmother placement failed.
- By 1997, the trial court found no substantial probability that the children could be returned to L.L.’s care.
- The department sought permanent guardianship for the foster parents rather than termination of L.L.’s parental rights.
- After a 1998 hearing, the trial court (using a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard) granted permanent guardianship to the foster parents, suspended L.L.’s custody and visitation rights, and ordered no contact between L.L. (and the grandmother) and the children.
- The order retained court jurisdiction, set a near-term review hearing, and preserved residual parental rights, including the right to seek modification and the right to approve or deny any proposed adoption.
- L.L. challenged the constitutionality of using the preponderance standard, arguing the order was effectively equivalent to terminating her parental rights and therefore required clear and convincing evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether due process requires proof by clear and convincing evidence, rather than a preponderance of the evidence, before a court may enter a permanent guardianship order in a dependency and neglect case that suspends a parent’s custody and visitation for an extended period.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals.
- The court held that applying a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to the permanent guardianship proceeding did not violate L.L.’s due process rights.
- The court concluded the permanent guardianship order was not the functional equivalent of terminating parental rights because L.L.’s parental status and certain residual rights remained, and the order was subject to court oversight and potential modification.

## Legal Principles

- Termination of parental rights permanently severs the parent–child relationship and, consistent with due process, requires proof by clear and convincing evidence.
- Permanent guardianship, even when it significantly restricts custody and visitation, is not termination where the parent retains legal parent status, residual rights (including seeking modification and controlling consent to adoption), and the placement remains subject to judicial supervision.
- Due process does not require the termination standard of proof in non-termination dispositions; a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard may be constitutionally sufficient where parental rights are limited but not irrevocably extinguished.
- Whether a heightened standard is required turns on whether the proceeding is, in law and effect, the functional equivalent of termination.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court upheld a permanent guardianship order entered under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, reasoning that due process did not require clear and convincing proof because the guardianship did not permanently and irrevocably terminate the parent–child relationship and left the parent with residual, enforceable rights and access to modification proceedings.


L.L. v. People, 10 P.3d 1271 (Colo. 2000)