25CA1026 Peo in Interest of BG 10-23-25
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 25CA1026 Archuleta County District Court No. 23JV30005 Honorable Nathaniel Baca, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Petitioner,
In the Interest of B.G., J.G., and P.G., Children,
and Concerning C.G.,
Appellant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Division II Opinion by JUDGE MEIRINK Brown and Fox, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced October 23, 2025
Cathleen M. Giovanni, County Attorney, Mark Olguin, Assistant Attorney, Pagosa Springs Colorado, for Petitioner
Josie Burt, Counsel for Youth, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, for B.G. and J.G.
Josie Burt, Guardian Ad Litem, for P.G.
The Morgan Law Office, Kristofr P. Morgan, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 In this dependency or neglect action, C.G. (mother) appeals
the judgment allocating parental responsibilities for B.G., J.G., and
P.G. (the children) to the children’s adult sibling, I.G., (sister).1 We
affirm the judgment.
I. Background
¶2 In April 2023, the Archuleta County Department of Human
Services (Department) filed a petition in dependency or neglect,
alleging, among other things, that mother’s mental health needs
prevented her from providing proper parental care for the children.
¶3 The children were initially placed with maternal grandmother,
then in a traditional foster home, before they were placed in sister’s
care, where they remained throughout the remainder of the
proceedings.
¶4 Mother admitted to the allegations in the petition and the
juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent and neglected.
The court then adopted a treatment plan for mother.
¶5 Later, the Department moved for an allocation of parental
responsibilities (APR) and requested that sister have sole custody
1 A fourth child, A.G., was subject to the case when it first began
but turned eighteen shortly before the APR hearing.
1 and decision-making authority over the children. Mother requested
sole custody and asked the court to return decision-making
authority of the children to her. Following a two-day contested APR
hearing, the court allocated sole custody and decision-making
authority to sister. Mother appeals.
II. Mother’s Contention
¶6 Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the evidence was
insufficient to establish a compelling reason to grant physical
custody of the children to sister and, therefore, the juvenile court
erred by entering the APR. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
¶7 The allocation of parental responsibilities is a matter within
the juvenile court’s discretion. See In re Parental Responsibilities
Concerning B.R.D., 2012 COA 63, ¶ 15. A juvenile court abuses its
discretion when its decision is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable,
or unfair, or is based on a misapplication of the law. People in
Interest of M.W., 2022 COA 72, ¶ 12.
¶8 In dependency or neglect proceedings, the juvenile court has
jurisdiction to allocate parental responsibilities between parents
and nonparents. § 19-3-508(1)(a), C.R.S. 2025; People in Interest of
2 H.K.W., 2017 COA 70, ¶ 12. An allocation of parental
responsibilities is governed by the Children’s Code. People in
Interest of J.G., 2021 COA 47, ¶ 13. The overriding purpose of the
Children’s Code is to protect the children’s welfare and safety by
providing procedures to serve the children’s best interests. Id. at ¶
19. Therefore, the court must allocate parental responsibilities in
accordance with the children’s best interests. People in Interest of
L.B., 254 P.3d 1203, 1208 (Colo. App. 2011).
¶9 Although a finding of parental unfitness is not required, People
in Interest of M.D., 2014 COA 121, ¶ 43; L.B., 254 P.3d at 1208, the
court may only award permanent custody of children to a
nonparent if the moving party establishes a compelling reason why
it is in the children’s best interests for the nonparent to have
custody.
¶ 10 It is for the court, as the trier of fact, to determine the
sufficiency, probative effect, and weight of the evidence, and to
assess the credibility of witnesses. People in Interest of A.J.L., 243
P.3d 244, 249-50 (Colo. 2010). And when the juvenile court’s
findings have record support, its resolution of conflicting evidence is
binding on review. B.R.D., ¶ 15. But whether the court applied the
3 correct legal standard in making its findings is a question of law
that we review de novo. People in Interest of N.G.G., 2020 COA 6,
¶ 10.
B. Analysis
¶ 11 The juvenile court found that “the evidence is clear here that
[mother] simply doesn’t have the skills at this time to act in the best
interests of her child[ren].” Specifically, the court noted that
mother had not addressed her mental health needs and that there
“continue[d] to be erratic behavior from [m]other.” The court
further determined “that there’s clear and convincing evidence here,
that there is a compelling reason to allocate parental
responsibilities to [sister],” “that the APR is in the best interest of
the children,” and that sister had done an “exceptional” job
ensuring the children’s needs were met. These findings have record
support.
¶ 12 Mother’s treatment plan required her to (1) develop a positive
working relationship with the Department, to include maintaining
contact with the Department and updating the caseworker of any
moves; (2) gain an understanding of and demonstrate how to
appropriately meet the children’s needs; and (3) participate in a
4 mental health evaluation and engage in any recommended
treatment.
¶ 13 The record shows that mother did not successfully complete
any component of her treatment plan. Mother never demonstrated
stability with her living situation and did not apprise the
caseworker of her various moves, and the caseworker was unable to
reach mother for long periods of time. Mother did not provide the
Department any evidence she completed a parenting class.
Mother’s family time with the children was sporadic. When mother
did attend family time, the children were reportedly so anxious
about mother’s erratic behavior that they requested it be supervised
by the Department. Mother refused to engage in family time once
the Department began supervising visits again, despite the
Department’s attempts to engage her.
¶ 14 Most importantly, significant concerns about mother’s mental
health needs remained at the time of the APR hearing. The
caseworker testified that mother had never engaged in a mental
health or psychological assessment. Though mother testified she
had engaged in some therapy, mother never provided any evidence
of this to the Department. The caseworker further reported that
5 when mother visited the caseworker’s office two months before the
APR hearing, mother becamea “very erratic” and her body language
“escalated” during a meeting to the point that the caseworker feared
for her own safety and ended the meeting. Even still, ten days
before the APR hearing mother reportedly showed up to the family
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
25CA1026 Peo in Interest of BG 10-23-25
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 25CA1026 Archuleta County District Court No. 23JV30005 Honorable Nathaniel Baca, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Petitioner,
In the Interest of B.G., J.G., and P.G., Children,
and Concerning C.G.,
Appellant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Division II Opinion by JUDGE MEIRINK Brown and Fox, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced October 23, 2025
Cathleen M. Giovanni, County Attorney, Mark Olguin, Assistant Attorney, Pagosa Springs Colorado, for Petitioner
Josie Burt, Counsel for Youth, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, for B.G. and J.G.
Josie Burt, Guardian Ad Litem, for P.G.
The Morgan Law Office, Kristofr P. Morgan, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 In this dependency or neglect action, C.G. (mother) appeals
the judgment allocating parental responsibilities for B.G., J.G., and
P.G. (the children) to the children’s adult sibling, I.G., (sister).1 We
affirm the judgment.
I. Background
¶2 In April 2023, the Archuleta County Department of Human
Services (Department) filed a petition in dependency or neglect,
alleging, among other things, that mother’s mental health needs
prevented her from providing proper parental care for the children.
¶3 The children were initially placed with maternal grandmother,
then in a traditional foster home, before they were placed in sister’s
care, where they remained throughout the remainder of the
proceedings.
¶4 Mother admitted to the allegations in the petition and the
juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent and neglected.
The court then adopted a treatment plan for mother.
¶5 Later, the Department moved for an allocation of parental
responsibilities (APR) and requested that sister have sole custody
1 A fourth child, A.G., was subject to the case when it first began
but turned eighteen shortly before the APR hearing.
1 and decision-making authority over the children. Mother requested
sole custody and asked the court to return decision-making
authority of the children to her. Following a two-day contested APR
hearing, the court allocated sole custody and decision-making
authority to sister. Mother appeals.
II. Mother’s Contention
¶6 Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the evidence was
insufficient to establish a compelling reason to grant physical
custody of the children to sister and, therefore, the juvenile court
erred by entering the APR. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
¶7 The allocation of parental responsibilities is a matter within
the juvenile court’s discretion. See In re Parental Responsibilities
Concerning B.R.D., 2012 COA 63, ¶ 15. A juvenile court abuses its
discretion when its decision is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable,
or unfair, or is based on a misapplication of the law. People in
Interest of M.W., 2022 COA 72, ¶ 12.
¶8 In dependency or neglect proceedings, the juvenile court has
jurisdiction to allocate parental responsibilities between parents
and nonparents. § 19-3-508(1)(a), C.R.S. 2025; People in Interest of
2 H.K.W., 2017 COA 70, ¶ 12. An allocation of parental
responsibilities is governed by the Children’s Code. People in
Interest of J.G., 2021 COA 47, ¶ 13. The overriding purpose of the
Children’s Code is to protect the children’s welfare and safety by
providing procedures to serve the children’s best interests. Id. at ¶
19. Therefore, the court must allocate parental responsibilities in
accordance with the children’s best interests. People in Interest of
L.B., 254 P.3d 1203, 1208 (Colo. App. 2011).
¶9 Although a finding of parental unfitness is not required, People
in Interest of M.D., 2014 COA 121, ¶ 43; L.B., 254 P.3d at 1208, the
court may only award permanent custody of children to a
nonparent if the moving party establishes a compelling reason why
it is in the children’s best interests for the nonparent to have
custody.
¶ 10 It is for the court, as the trier of fact, to determine the
sufficiency, probative effect, and weight of the evidence, and to
assess the credibility of witnesses. People in Interest of A.J.L., 243
P.3d 244, 249-50 (Colo. 2010). And when the juvenile court’s
findings have record support, its resolution of conflicting evidence is
binding on review. B.R.D., ¶ 15. But whether the court applied the
3 correct legal standard in making its findings is a question of law
that we review de novo. People in Interest of N.G.G., 2020 COA 6,
¶ 10.
B. Analysis
¶ 11 The juvenile court found that “the evidence is clear here that
[mother] simply doesn’t have the skills at this time to act in the best
interests of her child[ren].” Specifically, the court noted that
mother had not addressed her mental health needs and that there
“continue[d] to be erratic behavior from [m]other.” The court
further determined “that there’s clear and convincing evidence here,
that there is a compelling reason to allocate parental
responsibilities to [sister],” “that the APR is in the best interest of
the children,” and that sister had done an “exceptional” job
ensuring the children’s needs were met. These findings have record
support.
¶ 12 Mother’s treatment plan required her to (1) develop a positive
working relationship with the Department, to include maintaining
contact with the Department and updating the caseworker of any
moves; (2) gain an understanding of and demonstrate how to
appropriately meet the children’s needs; and (3) participate in a
4 mental health evaluation and engage in any recommended
treatment.
¶ 13 The record shows that mother did not successfully complete
any component of her treatment plan. Mother never demonstrated
stability with her living situation and did not apprise the
caseworker of her various moves, and the caseworker was unable to
reach mother for long periods of time. Mother did not provide the
Department any evidence she completed a parenting class.
Mother’s family time with the children was sporadic. When mother
did attend family time, the children were reportedly so anxious
about mother’s erratic behavior that they requested it be supervised
by the Department. Mother refused to engage in family time once
the Department began supervising visits again, despite the
Department’s attempts to engage her.
¶ 14 Most importantly, significant concerns about mother’s mental
health needs remained at the time of the APR hearing. The
caseworker testified that mother had never engaged in a mental
health or psychological assessment. Though mother testified she
had engaged in some therapy, mother never provided any evidence
of this to the Department. The caseworker further reported that
5 when mother visited the caseworker’s office two months before the
APR hearing, mother becamea “very erratic” and her body language
“escalated” during a meeting to the point that the caseworker feared
for her own safety and ended the meeting. Even still, ten days
before the APR hearing mother reportedly showed up to the family
home when she knew sister would not be there, against court
orders, and attempted to convince law enforcement that she was
the custodial parent.
¶ 15 Ultimately, the caseworker opined that mother had not
successfully completed any component of her treatment plan and
that the concerns that led to the Department’s involvement with the
family still existed at the time of the APR hearing.
¶ 16 Furthermore, while mother asserts that the children were
exposed to drug use and inappropriate sexual behavior in sister’s
home, the caseworker testified that she had investigated the
concerns and determined that the issues either did not appear to
exist or had been appropriately addressed by sister. The
caseworker had no concerns about sister’s ability to provide for the
children’s needs, and the children were “happy and thriving” in her
6 care. The caseworker also reported that the children wished to
remain with sister.
¶ 17 Accordingly, because the record supports the juvenile court’s
findings, and the court applied the correct legal standard and
burden of proof, we discern no abuse of discretion in the entry of
the APR order.
III. Disposition
¶ 18 The judgment is affirmed.
JUDGE FOX and JUDGE BROWN concur.