In the Matter of Minor Child D.I.S. Alan Sidman and Sheryl Sidman v. Michael Sidman and Renee Sidman

Summary

The court held that fit parents who consent to an unlimited guardianship under section 15-14-204(2)(a) retain a presumption that their decision to terminate the guardianship and regain custody is in the child's best interests, unless the guardianship order expressly limits that presumption. The guardians therefore bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is not in the child's best interests, although the presumption does not automatically require returning custody to the parents. Justice Martinez, dissenting, would have held that the parents' loss of legal custody and control made the constitutional presumption inapplicable.