Opinion ID: 2572707
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: internal law

Text: Initially, we note that had the failed adoption proceedings taken place exclusively in Colorado, there would be no question that the district court would have jurisdiction to entertain the Petitioners' Verified Petition for Allocation of Parental Responsibilities. In 1995, this court held that non-parents with physical custody of a child in contemplation of future relinquishment and adoption proceedings had standing under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act (UDMA), section 14-10-101, et seq., 5 C.R.S. (2003), to seek custody of the child after the adoption failed. In re Custody of C.C.R.S., 892 P.2d 246, 253 (Colo.1995) (non-parents who had physical possession and control of a child for six months before the filing of their custody petition had standing under either subsection (1)(b) or (1)(c) of section 14-10-123, 5 C.R.S. (2003) of the UDMA.) Most importantly, for purposes of the case before us today, we also held that the revocation of a biological parent's consent to the termination of parental responsibilities and adoption did not give the biological parent an automatic statutory right to the return of her child. C.C.R.S., 892 P.2d at 254. Rather, we determined that the prospective adoption proceedings turned into a custodial dispute under the UDMA, which did not involve the termination of parental rights. Id. Additionally, Colorado's statutes governing adoptions provide that when the relinquishment of a parent-child legal relationship is revoked, the court shall dismiss any proceeding for adoption and shall provide for the care and custody of the child according to the child's best interests.  [11] § 19-5-104(8), 6 C.R.S. (2003) (emphasis added). Hence, in Colorado, by operation of statute and case law, when prospective adoptive parents have custody of a child and the adoption fails, those individuals nonetheless have a right to ask a court to determine whether they may be afforded some ongoing rights and responsibilities in service of the best interests of the child. Those proceedings would, under present law, be governed by the UDMA and, accordingly, the best interests of the child standard would apply at that point. C.C.R.S., 892 P.2d at 257-58. This failed adoption proceeding occurred in Missouri, not Colorado. Therefore, it falls to us to determine whether the interstate nature of this case causes us to change the result reached in C.C.R.S.
Missouri, like Colorado, has recognized that in certain situations, a failed adoption does not automatically result in the custody of a child being restored to the natural parent(s). See In re Baby Girl, 850 S.W.2d 64 (Mo.1993) (where trial court considered the validity of a biological mother's consent to adoption, but failed to inquire into the best interests of the child, as required by statute, the case was remanded for further proceedings). Although Baby Girl was based on a specific statute requiring a court to inquire into the best interests of the child when a child is unlawfully removed from the state, we take from that case the principle that failed adoption proceedings do not in all cases require custody to be returned to the biological parent(s). Indeed, Missouri, like Colorado, emphasizes that the overarching goal in all adoption and custody proceedings is the best interests of the child. See Mo.Rev.Stat. § 453.005 (2003) (The statutory provisions governing adoption and foster care shall be construed so as to promote the best interests and welfare of the child in recognition of the entitlement of the child to a permanent and stable home.); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 452.375.2 (2003) (The court shall determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child.); Shepler v. Sayres, 372 S.W.2d 87, 90-91 (Mo.1963) (When adjudicating child custody questions, it may be said that the prime consideration of the courts, and the ultimately determinative factor in all such cases, is that of the welfare and best interests of the children involved.); In re K.K.M., 647 S.W.2d 886, 892 (Mo.Ct.App.1983) (The polestar guiding the resolution of custody disputes is the best interests of the child.); see also In re Neusche, 398 S.W.2d 453, 457 (Mo.Ct.App.1966) (holding that the welfare of the child is the primary and paramount consideration in an adoption or custody proceeding, the wishes of the nature [sic] mother and of the petitioners being secondary and subservient thereto.) Missouri law also requires the court to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent a minor child such as A.J.C. who is the subject of an adoption proceeding, presumably in order to convey to the court what the best interests of the child are. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 453.025 (2003) (A court shall, in all cases where the person sought to be adopted is under eighteen years of age, appoint a guardian ad litem ... to represent the person sought to be adopted.). Thus, we conclude that Missouri's law, like Colorado's, supports the proposition that custody determinations, even after a failed adoption, must take into account the best interests of the child.