Whether it infringes on a fit parent's fundamental constitutional rights to, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence of unfitness or harm caused by the parent and based only on the children's best interest, restrict a fit parent's rights and award sole parental and decision-making rights to a non-parent

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented in this petition have been percolating in State courts of last resort for the past couple decades. The result has been a deep split among the States on whether to treat children as mere creatures of the State by restricting or terminating parents’ rights using the “best interest of the child” test, or to apply a “harm-based” test to determine whether parent’s actions (unfitness) have created safety concerns for their children, acknowledging the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. Recognizing the grave impact of the applicable test on the fundamental constitutional rights of Petitioner and her children, the Colorado Court of Appeals addressed it head on, further widening the split. This case offers an appropriate vehicle to address the split and provide guidance on the circumstances under which the “best interest of the child” standard fails to provide sufficient constitutional protections for parent-child relationships. The questions presented are: 1. Whether it infringes on a fit parent’s fundamental constitutional rights to, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence of unfitness or harm caused by the parent and based only on the children’s best interest, restrict a fit parent’s rights and award sole parental and decision-making rights to a non-parent. 2. Whether it infringes on a fit parent’s fundamental constitutional rights to grant non-parents automatic standing to request allocation of parental rights because of their status as intervenor based on the State’s previous placement of the i children with intervenors, over the parent’s objection.