Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grandparent Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances bill to restore grandparents’ visitation and placement presumptions
Summary
The Senate Health and Human Services Committee voted unanimously to send House Bill 13‑14 to the Committee of the Whole. Sponsor Tony Exum told the committee the bill restores a statutory definition of “grandparent” and clarifies presumptions favoring placement with kin after a 2025 Colorado Supreme Court decision narrowed standing.
House Bill 13‑14, which would align Colorado law to preserve grandparents’ placement and visitation rights when a parent is deceased or a child is removed from parental custody, was advanced unanimously by the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.
Sponsor Tony Exum said the measure “fixes that error” created by a 2025 Colorado Supreme Court decision that, he said, narrowed who counts as a grandparent in dependency proceedings. Exum told the committee the bill amends the statutory definition of grandparent and great‑grandparent and codifies a presumption that placement with relatives is in the child’s best interest while allowing that the presumption may be rebutted by evidence.
Two witnesses who said they represent family‑focused groups supported the bill. Sue Ricker of the Colorado Council of Churches’ Voices for Justice unit said the measure “prioritizes the preservation of the family” and that grandparents often find out too late that a relative entered foster care. Melanie Jordan, policy director for the Office of Respondent Parents Council, said the change would restore what she described as common sense to the law while emphasizing that background checks and safety assessments for placements would continue.
Committee members asked about earlier, broader versions of the bill that drew opposition from some counties and stakeholders; Jordan said counties have moved toward neutral positions and that more controversial post‑adoption contact provisions were removed in the House amendments. Jordan also cited a court case (identified in committee testimony) as an example of how statutory language had produced confusion.
After a brief wrap‑up from the sponsor, a member moved House Bill 13‑14 to the Committee of the Whole; the motion passed unanimously and the bill was placed on the consent calendar. The committee did not adopt any committee amendments in this hearing.
The next procedural step is consideration by the Committee of the Whole.
