24CA1832 Peo in Interest of BW 04-03-2025
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 24CA1832 Jefferson County District Court No. 20JV371 Honorable Lindsey Van Gilder, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Appellee,
In the Interest of B.W., a Child,
and Concerning K.V-D.,
Appellant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Division A Opinion by JUDGE GRAHAM* Román, C.J., and Bernard*, J., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced April 3, 2025
Kimberly Sorrells, County Attorney, Sarah Oviatt, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Golden, Colorado, for Appellee
Samantha Metsger, Counsel for Youth, Denver, Colorado, for B.W.
Lindsey Parlin, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant
*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2024. ¶1 K.V-D. (father) appeals the juvenile court’s judgment
terminating his parent-child legal relationship with B.W. (the
youth). We affirm the judgment.
I. Background
¶2 The Jefferson County Division of Children, Youth, and
Families (Division) filed a petition in dependency and neglect
regarding the then-eleven-year-old youth. The petition alleged that
mother had emotionally and physically abused the child. It
contained no allegations as to father, who had never met the youth
and had been serving a prison sentence.
¶3 The juvenile court adjudicated the youth dependent or
neglected. The court adopted a treatment plan for father requiring
that he, among other things, (1) complete a mental health
assessment and follow all recommendations; (2) complete an anger
management assessment and follow all recommendations; (3)
attend family time with the youth; and (4) understand and
demonstrate how to support the youth and meet his developmental
and emotional needs. The treatment plan was subsequently
amended to remove the anger management assessment and instead
have father address this issue in individual therapy.
1 ¶4 The Division later moved to terminate father’s parental rights.
After a hearing, held nearly four years after the filing of the petition,
the court terminated father’s parent-child legal relationship with
the youth.
II. Additional Time
¶5 Father argues that the juvenile court erroneously found that
he could not become a fit parent within a reasonable time. We are
not persuaded.
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
¶6 “Once a treatment plan has been devised for a parent, a court
may only terminate parental rights when, among other things, the
court finds that parent unfit and unable to become fit in a
reasonable time.” People in Interest of L.M., 2018 COA 57M, ¶ 27.
An unfit parent is one whose conduct or condition renders them
“unable or unwilling to give the child reasonable parental care to
include, at a minimum, nurturing and safe parenting sufficiently
adequate to meet the child’s physical, emotional, and mental health
needs and conditions.” § 19-3-604(2), C.R.S. 2024.
¶7 When determining whether a parent’s conduct or condition is
likely to change within a reasonable time, “the court may consider
2 whether any change has occurred during the proceeding, the
parent’s social history, and the chronic or long-term nature of the
parent’s conduct or condition.” People in Interest of S.Z.S., 2022
COA 133, ¶ 24.
¶8 What constitutes a reasonable time is fact-specific and must
be determined by considering the physical, mental, and emotional
conditions and needs of the child. Id. at ¶ 25. A “reasonable time”
is not an indefinite time. Id. And even when a parent has made
recent progress on a treatment plan, the court is not required to
give the parent additional time to comply. See id. at ¶¶ 24-25
(citing People in Interest of V.W., 958 P.2d 1132, 1134-35 (Colo.
App. 1998) (even “increased compliance” over the course of a case
may not justify additional time)).
¶9 Whether a juvenile court properly terminated parental rights
presents a mixed question of law and fact because it involves
application of the termination statute to evidentiary facts. People in
Interest of A.M. v. T.M., 2021 CO 14, ¶ 15. “We review the juvenile
court’s findings of evidentiary fact — the raw, historical data
underlying the controversy — for clear error and accept them if they
have record support.” People in Interest of S.R.N.J-S., 2020 COA 12,
3 ¶ 10. We review de novo the juvenile court’s legal conclusions. See
id.; People in Interest of A.S.L., 2022 COA 146, ¶ 8.
¶ 10 It is for the juvenile court, as the trier of fact, to determine the
sufficiency, probative effect, and weight of the evidence and to
assess witness credibility. People in Interest of A.J.L., 243 P.3d 244,
249-50 (Colo. 2010).
B. Analysis
¶ 11 The juvenile court found that father could not become fit to
parent the youth in a reasonable time. In doing so, the court found
that the case had been open for nearly four years and yet father had
not addressed his mental health or anger and he lacked an ability
to regulate his emotions. The court also found that father engaged
in only four therapeutic family time sessions in four years, that
there was significant inconsistency in his engagement with
therapeutic family time, and that attempts to engage him in family
time were unsuccessful. The court further found that the youth’s
“needs are extraordinarily high and, frankly, complicated.” The
court acknowledged father’s recent progress but found that father
had not demonstrated an understanding of the youth’s specific
4 physical, mental health, and emotional needs. The record supports
the court’s findings.
¶ 12 During the four years that the case was open, father did not
successfully address the issues that would render him fit. The
caseworker testified that father had not completed a mental health
assessment nor engaged in individual therapy. And because father
did not start individual therapy, he never addressed his anger
management issues. Father regularly became dysregulated and
angry with both caseworkers assigned to this case, causing concern
for the caseworkers’ safety. The caseworker reported that
throughout the case, father’s demeanor became escalated, and he
did not show an ability to de-escalate or control his frustration.
¶ 13 Because father had no pre-existing relationship with the youth
when the case opened, the parent-child relationship began with
therapeutic visits. The therapist testified that father inconsistently
attended family time, that father behaved inappropriately toward
the therapist, and that the therapist could not redirect father
during family time. The last therapeutic family time session, which
occurred a month prior to the termination hearing, lasted only ten
minutes. The youth ended the session early because the therapist
5 was unable to redirect father when he spoke of inappropriate topics.
Thereafter, the youth requested additional time and space before
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
24CA1832 Peo in Interest of BW 04-03-2025
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 24CA1832 Jefferson County District Court No. 20JV371 Honorable Lindsey Van Gilder, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Appellee,
In the Interest of B.W., a Child,
and Concerning K.V-D.,
Appellant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Division A Opinion by JUDGE GRAHAM* Román, C.J., and Bernard*, J., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced April 3, 2025
Kimberly Sorrells, County Attorney, Sarah Oviatt, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Golden, Colorado, for Appellee
Samantha Metsger, Counsel for Youth, Denver, Colorado, for B.W.
Lindsey Parlin, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant
*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2024. ¶1 K.V-D. (father) appeals the juvenile court’s judgment
terminating his parent-child legal relationship with B.W. (the
youth). We affirm the judgment.
I. Background
¶2 The Jefferson County Division of Children, Youth, and
Families (Division) filed a petition in dependency and neglect
regarding the then-eleven-year-old youth. The petition alleged that
mother had emotionally and physically abused the child. It
contained no allegations as to father, who had never met the youth
and had been serving a prison sentence.
¶3 The juvenile court adjudicated the youth dependent or
neglected. The court adopted a treatment plan for father requiring
that he, among other things, (1) complete a mental health
assessment and follow all recommendations; (2) complete an anger
management assessment and follow all recommendations; (3)
attend family time with the youth; and (4) understand and
demonstrate how to support the youth and meet his developmental
and emotional needs. The treatment plan was subsequently
amended to remove the anger management assessment and instead
have father address this issue in individual therapy.
1 ¶4 The Division later moved to terminate father’s parental rights.
After a hearing, held nearly four years after the filing of the petition,
the court terminated father’s parent-child legal relationship with
the youth.
II. Additional Time
¶5 Father argues that the juvenile court erroneously found that
he could not become a fit parent within a reasonable time. We are
not persuaded.
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
¶6 “Once a treatment plan has been devised for a parent, a court
may only terminate parental rights when, among other things, the
court finds that parent unfit and unable to become fit in a
reasonable time.” People in Interest of L.M., 2018 COA 57M, ¶ 27.
An unfit parent is one whose conduct or condition renders them
“unable or unwilling to give the child reasonable parental care to
include, at a minimum, nurturing and safe parenting sufficiently
adequate to meet the child’s physical, emotional, and mental health
needs and conditions.” § 19-3-604(2), C.R.S. 2024.
¶7 When determining whether a parent’s conduct or condition is
likely to change within a reasonable time, “the court may consider
2 whether any change has occurred during the proceeding, the
parent’s social history, and the chronic or long-term nature of the
parent’s conduct or condition.” People in Interest of S.Z.S., 2022
COA 133, ¶ 24.
¶8 What constitutes a reasonable time is fact-specific and must
be determined by considering the physical, mental, and emotional
conditions and needs of the child. Id. at ¶ 25. A “reasonable time”
is not an indefinite time. Id. And even when a parent has made
recent progress on a treatment plan, the court is not required to
give the parent additional time to comply. See id. at ¶¶ 24-25
(citing People in Interest of V.W., 958 P.2d 1132, 1134-35 (Colo.
App. 1998) (even “increased compliance” over the course of a case
may not justify additional time)).
¶9 Whether a juvenile court properly terminated parental rights
presents a mixed question of law and fact because it involves
application of the termination statute to evidentiary facts. People in
Interest of A.M. v. T.M., 2021 CO 14, ¶ 15. “We review the juvenile
court’s findings of evidentiary fact — the raw, historical data
underlying the controversy — for clear error and accept them if they
have record support.” People in Interest of S.R.N.J-S., 2020 COA 12,
3 ¶ 10. We review de novo the juvenile court’s legal conclusions. See
id.; People in Interest of A.S.L., 2022 COA 146, ¶ 8.
¶ 10 It is for the juvenile court, as the trier of fact, to determine the
sufficiency, probative effect, and weight of the evidence and to
assess witness credibility. People in Interest of A.J.L., 243 P.3d 244,
249-50 (Colo. 2010).
B. Analysis
¶ 11 The juvenile court found that father could not become fit to
parent the youth in a reasonable time. In doing so, the court found
that the case had been open for nearly four years and yet father had
not addressed his mental health or anger and he lacked an ability
to regulate his emotions. The court also found that father engaged
in only four therapeutic family time sessions in four years, that
there was significant inconsistency in his engagement with
therapeutic family time, and that attempts to engage him in family
time were unsuccessful. The court further found that the youth’s
“needs are extraordinarily high and, frankly, complicated.” The
court acknowledged father’s recent progress but found that father
had not demonstrated an understanding of the youth’s specific
4 physical, mental health, and emotional needs. The record supports
the court’s findings.
¶ 12 During the four years that the case was open, father did not
successfully address the issues that would render him fit. The
caseworker testified that father had not completed a mental health
assessment nor engaged in individual therapy. And because father
did not start individual therapy, he never addressed his anger
management issues. Father regularly became dysregulated and
angry with both caseworkers assigned to this case, causing concern
for the caseworkers’ safety. The caseworker reported that
throughout the case, father’s demeanor became escalated, and he
did not show an ability to de-escalate or control his frustration.
¶ 13 Because father had no pre-existing relationship with the youth
when the case opened, the parent-child relationship began with
therapeutic visits. The therapist testified that father inconsistently
attended family time, that father behaved inappropriately toward
the therapist, and that the therapist could not redirect father
during family time. The last therapeutic family time session, which
occurred a month prior to the termination hearing, lasted only ten
minutes. The youth ended the session early because the therapist
5 was unable to redirect father when he spoke of inappropriate topics.
Thereafter, the youth requested additional time and space before
re-engaging with father, and there were no more family time visits.
In total, father participated in only four sessions with the youth
over a period of four years.
¶ 14 The record also shows that the youth had extraordinarily high
needs. The caseworker testified that the youth’s emotional and
behavioral needs were more demanding than a typical youth his
age, and he suffered from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,
post-traumatic stress disorder, and a mild intellectual disability.
The youth’s therapist testified that the youth’s needs are “incredibly
high in terms of his therapeutic needs” and that he presents at a
much lower developmental age. She stated that in engaging with
the youth, it was “important to be incredibly trauma-informed,
incredibly important to have proper psychoeducation on the
impacts of trauma and his attachment and how he conceptualizes
and processes things.” However, Father minimally engaged in
family intervention services, which were designed to teach him how
to be trauma informed and to appropriately handle the youth’s
needs.
6 ¶ 15 The caseworker, who was qualified as an expert in child
protection casework, testified that she did not believe there was a
substantial probability that anything in father’s condition would
change within a reasonable time.
¶ 16 Based on the evidence in the record, and considering the
youth’s physical, emotional, and mental health needs, the juvenile
court did not err when it found father could not become fit within a
reasonable time.
III. Disposition
¶ 17 We affirm the judgment.
CHIEF JUDGE ROMÁN and JUDGE BERNARD concur.