City of Northglenn v. Ibarra
2003 WL 122505, 2003 Colo. LEXIS 11, 62 P.3d 151 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A home-rule city's ordinance is preempted by state law when it regulates a matter of dominant statewide concern. The uniform, statewide placement and supervision of adjudicated delinquent children in state-created foster families is a matter of statewide concern that overrides a municipality's local interest in land use regulation.
Facts:
- For fifteen years, Juliana Ibarra and her husband operated a state-certified foster home in the City of Northglenn.
- Ibarra received specialized training to care for children who were victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse.
- The City of Northglenn enacted Ordinance 1248, which redefined "family" to prohibit more than one unrelated registered sex offender from living together in a single-family home.
- At the time, the Ibarras were providing foster care to three unrelated male youths who were all required to register as sex offenders due to prior adjudications for incestuous conduct.
- The state had removed the three youths from their parents' homes and, through a state-licensed child placement agency, placed them with the Ibarras.
- The three youths had been living in the Ibarra's foster home for periods ranging from four months to three years before the city took action.
- Because the Ibarras continued to provide a home for the three youths after the ordinance became effective, the City of Northglenn charged Juliana Ibarra with violating the ordinance.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Northglenn charged Juliana Ibarra in municipal trial court with violating Ordinance 1248.
- The trial court convicted Ibarra and imposed a $750 fine.
- Ibarra, as appellant, appealed her conviction to the Adams County District Court, an intermediate appellate court.
- The District Court reversed the trial court's conviction, ruling that the ordinance violated the federal Fair Housing Act and Ibarra's constitutional rights.
- The City of Northglenn, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Colorado Supreme Court to review the District Court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does state law, which governs the comprehensive placement and supervision of adjudicated delinquent children in foster care, preempt a home-rule city's ordinance that prohibits more than one unrelated registered sex offender from living in a single-family residence, as applied to a state-created foster home?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Bender
Yes, state law preempts the city's ordinance as applied to these circumstances. The placement and supervision of adjudicated delinquent children in state-created foster families is a matter of statewide concern, not merely local land use. The court applied a totality of the circumstances test, weighing state and local interests. It found a dominant state interest based on several factors: 1) The Colorado Children's Code creates a comprehensive and uniform statewide system for placing and supervising delinquent children, and the ordinance creates a disruptive 'patchwork approach.' 2) The ordinance has a significant extraterritorial impact by reducing the already scarce number of available foster homes, affecting the entire state system. 3) The state has a traditional parens patriae interest in child welfare and a history of regulating social services. The state’s interest in fulfilling its statutory mandates to provide uniform care and rehabilitation for these children is dominant and thus overrides Northglenn's legitimate, but lesser, interest in local zoning.
Dissenting - Justice Coats
No, state law does not preempt the city's ordinance. The majority misapplies the preemption test by weighing interests to find a 'dominant' one, which effectively eliminates the category of 'mixed' state and local concern. The regulation of housing for sex offenders is a classic example of a mixed concern, involving both the city's legitimate interest in zoning and public safety and the state's interest in placing juveniles. In cases of mixed concern, local and state laws can coexist unless they directly conflict. Here, the ordinance does not forbid what state law expressly authorizes; rather, it places a limitation on the general discretion of state agents, similar to how those agents must already comply with local health and safety codes. The proper course is to presume state agents must follow valid local laws, and if this proves unworkable, the state legislature—not the court—should act to expressly preempt such ordinances.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the framework for resolving conflicts between Colorado's home-rule municipalities and state law, emphasizing that even traditional local powers like zoning can be preempted. The court's holding establishes that when a local ordinance, in its application, directly impedes the goals of a comprehensive, uniform state statutory scheme for social services, it will be deemed to regulate a matter of 'statewide concern' and will be struck down. This case sets a strong precedent prioritizing the state's role in child welfare and the provision of social services over municipal police powers, impacting how cities can regulate group homes or other state-licensed facilities within their borders.
