24CA0952 Peo in Interest of JAAVH 01-02-2025
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 24CA0952 City and County of Denver Juvenile Court No. 21JV525 Honorable Elizabeth McCarthy, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Appellee,
In the Interest of J.A.A.V.H., a Child,
and Concerning K.J.V.H.,
Appellant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Division IV Opinion by JUDGE KUHN Harris and Yun, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced January 2, 2025
Kerri Tipper, City Attorney, Amy J. Packer, Assistant City Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee
Josi McCauley, Guardian Ad Litem
Lindsey Parlin, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 K.J.V.H. (mother) appeals the judgment terminating the
parent-child legal relationship with her child, J.A.A.V.H. We affirm.
I. Background
¶2 In July 2021, Denver Human Services (the Department)
received a report that mother was using illegal substances, her
home was very disheveled, and there was domestic violence in the
home. Mother agreed to a safety plan, where the child was placed
with maternal grandparents and mother would submit to drug
testing. Mother then tested positive for methamphetamine.
¶3 Based on this information, the Department filed a petition in
dependency and neglect. Mother admitted to the allegations, and
the juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent and neglected.
The court then adopted a treatment plan for mother that required
her to (1) address her substance dependence issues; (2) participate
in mental health treatment; (3) provide a safe and stable home for
the child; and (4) meet the child’s needs and maintain a bond with
him.
¶4 In June 2023, the Department moved to terminate mother’s
parental rights. After several continuances, the juvenile court held
an evidentiary hearing on the motion in April 2024. At the
1 conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the Department’s
motion and terminated mother’s parental rights under section
19-3-604(1)(c), C.R.S. 2024.
II. Analysis
¶5 Mother asserts that the juvenile court erred by finding that
she could not become fit within a reasonable time. We disagree.
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
¶6 Before the juvenile court may terminate parental rights under
section 19-3-604(1)(c), it must find, by clear and convincing
evidence, that (1) the parent did not comply with an appropriate,
court-approved treatment plan or the plan was not successful;
(2) the parent is unfit; and (3) the parent’s conduct or condition is
unlikely to change in a reasonable time.
¶7 An unfit parent is one whose conduct or condition renders the
parent unable or unwilling to give a child reasonable parental care.
People in Interest of D.P., 160 P.3d 351, 353 (Colo. App. 2007).
Reasonable parental care requires, at a minimum, that the parent
provide nurturing and safe parenting sufficient to meet the child’s
physical, emotional, and mental health needs and conditions.
People in Interest of A.J., 143 P.3d 1143, 1152 (Colo. App. 2006). A
2 parent’s noncompliance with a treatment plan generally
“demonstrates a lack of commitment to meeting the child’s needs
and, therefore, may also be considered in determining unfitness.”
People in Interest of D.P., 181 P.3d 403, 408 (Colo. App. 2008).
¶8 When determining whether a parent’s conduct or condition is
likely to change in a reasonable time, the juvenile court may
consider 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 D.L.C., 70
P.3d 584, 588-89 (Colo. App. 2003). Where a parent has made little
to no progress on a treatment plan, the court need not give the
parent additional time to comply. People in Interest of S.Z.S., 2022
COA 133, ¶ 24.
¶9 The determination of a reasonable period of time is
fact-specific and so varies from case to case. Id. at ¶ 25; see also
People in Interest of D.Y., 176 P.3d 874, 876 (Colo. App. 2007).
However, a reasonable time is not an indefinite time, and it must be
determined by considering the child’s physical, mental, and
emotional conditions and needs. S.Z.S., ¶ 25. When a child is
under six years old, as in this case, the juvenile court must also
3 consider the expedited permanency planning (EPP) provisions,
which require that the child be placed in a permanent home as
expeditiously as possible. See §§ 19-1-102(1.6), 19-1-123,
19-3-702(5)(c), C.R.S. 2024.
¶ 10 Whether the juvenile court properly terminated parental rights
is a mixed question of fact and law. See People in Interest of A.M. v.
T.M., 2021 CO 14, ¶ 15. We review the court’s factual findings for
clear error, accepting them if they have record support, and we
review de novo its legal conclusions based on those facts. People in
Interest of S.R.N.J-S., 2020 COA 12, ¶ 10.
B. The Juvenile Court Did Not Err by Terminating Mother’s Parental Rights
¶ 11 The juvenile court found that, although mother had made
some progress on her treatment plan, she did not reasonably
comply with the plan overall and was therefore an unfit parent. See
D.P., 181 P.3d at 408. Specifically, the court noted that mother had
not completed a drug screen since the beginning of the case. See
People in Interest of K.T., 129 P.3d 1080, 1082 (Colo. App. 2005)
(unfitness may be premised on a parent’s failure to document
sobriety). The court determined that mother could not become fit
4 within a reasonable time considering that (1) the case had been
open for almost three years; (2) mother had not established sobriety
or progressed beyond supervised visits; and (3) the child had been
in out-of-home placement for much of his life and needed
permanency as soon as possible. See S.Z.S., ¶ 24; D.L.C., 70 P.3d
at 588-89.
¶ 12 The record supports the juvenile court’s findings. The
caseworker — who was qualified as an expert in the field of child
protection — testified that mother started three different substance
abuse evaluations, but she did not begin any treatment until two
years into the case. Mother had not completed a drug screen since
August 2021, which was positive for methamphetamine. Indeed,
the caseworker testified that the Department tried but was
unsuccessful in getting mother to take additional drug tests. And
mother continued to deny that she had a drug problem. As for
family time, the caseworker testified that mother attended
inconsistently at first, but she had been more consistent recently.
See People in Interest of V.W., 958 P.2d 1132, 1134-35 (Colo. App.
1998) (noting that even “increased compliance” over the course of a
case may not justify additional time). But mother’s visits remained
5 supervised after nearly three years. The caseworker opined that,
considering the EPP guidelines, mother could not become fit in a
reasonable time because the case had been open since 2021 and
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
24CA0952 Peo in Interest of JAAVH 01-02-2025
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 24CA0952 City and County of Denver Juvenile Court No. 21JV525 Honorable Elizabeth McCarthy, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Appellee,
In the Interest of J.A.A.V.H., a Child,
and Concerning K.J.V.H.,
Appellant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Division IV Opinion by JUDGE KUHN Harris and Yun, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced January 2, 2025
Kerri Tipper, City Attorney, Amy J. Packer, Assistant City Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee
Josi McCauley, Guardian Ad Litem
Lindsey Parlin, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 K.J.V.H. (mother) appeals the judgment terminating the
parent-child legal relationship with her child, J.A.A.V.H. We affirm.
I. Background
¶2 In July 2021, Denver Human Services (the Department)
received a report that mother was using illegal substances, her
home was very disheveled, and there was domestic violence in the
home. Mother agreed to a safety plan, where the child was placed
with maternal grandparents and mother would submit to drug
testing. Mother then tested positive for methamphetamine.
¶3 Based on this information, the Department filed a petition in
dependency and neglect. Mother admitted to the allegations, and
the juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent and neglected.
The court then adopted a treatment plan for mother that required
her to (1) address her substance dependence issues; (2) participate
in mental health treatment; (3) provide a safe and stable home for
the child; and (4) meet the child’s needs and maintain a bond with
him.
¶4 In June 2023, the Department moved to terminate mother’s
parental rights. After several continuances, the juvenile court held
an evidentiary hearing on the motion in April 2024. At the
1 conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the Department’s
motion and terminated mother’s parental rights under section
19-3-604(1)(c), C.R.S. 2024.
II. Analysis
¶5 Mother asserts that the juvenile court erred by finding that
she could not become fit within a reasonable time. We disagree.
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
¶6 Before the juvenile court may terminate parental rights under
section 19-3-604(1)(c), it must find, by clear and convincing
evidence, that (1) the parent did not comply with an appropriate,
court-approved treatment plan or the plan was not successful;
(2) the parent is unfit; and (3) the parent’s conduct or condition is
unlikely to change in a reasonable time.
¶7 An unfit parent is one whose conduct or condition renders the
parent unable or unwilling to give a child reasonable parental care.
People in Interest of D.P., 160 P.3d 351, 353 (Colo. App. 2007).
Reasonable parental care requires, at a minimum, that the parent
provide nurturing and safe parenting sufficient to meet the child’s
physical, emotional, and mental health needs and conditions.
People in Interest of A.J., 143 P.3d 1143, 1152 (Colo. App. 2006). A
2 parent’s noncompliance with a treatment plan generally
“demonstrates a lack of commitment to meeting the child’s needs
and, therefore, may also be considered in determining unfitness.”
People in Interest of D.P., 181 P.3d 403, 408 (Colo. App. 2008).
¶8 When determining whether a parent’s conduct or condition is
likely to change in a reasonable time, the juvenile court may
consider 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 D.L.C., 70
P.3d 584, 588-89 (Colo. App. 2003). Where a parent has made little
to no progress on a treatment plan, the court need not give the
parent additional time to comply. People in Interest of S.Z.S., 2022
COA 133, ¶ 24.
¶9 The determination of a reasonable period of time is
fact-specific and so varies from case to case. Id. at ¶ 25; see also
People in Interest of D.Y., 176 P.3d 874, 876 (Colo. App. 2007).
However, a reasonable time is not an indefinite time, and it must be
determined by considering the child’s physical, mental, and
emotional conditions and needs. S.Z.S., ¶ 25. When a child is
under six years old, as in this case, the juvenile court must also
3 consider the expedited permanency planning (EPP) provisions,
which require that the child be placed in a permanent home as
expeditiously as possible. See §§ 19-1-102(1.6), 19-1-123,
19-3-702(5)(c), C.R.S. 2024.
¶ 10 Whether the juvenile court properly terminated parental rights
is a mixed question of fact and law. See People in Interest of A.M. v.
T.M., 2021 CO 14, ¶ 15. We review the court’s factual findings for
clear error, accepting them if they have record support, and we
review de novo its legal conclusions based on those facts. People in
Interest of S.R.N.J-S., 2020 COA 12, ¶ 10.
B. The Juvenile Court Did Not Err by Terminating Mother’s Parental Rights
¶ 11 The juvenile court found that, although mother had made
some progress on her treatment plan, she did not reasonably
comply with the plan overall and was therefore an unfit parent. See
D.P., 181 P.3d at 408. Specifically, the court noted that mother had
not completed a drug screen since the beginning of the case. See
People in Interest of K.T., 129 P.3d 1080, 1082 (Colo. App. 2005)
(unfitness may be premised on a parent’s failure to document
sobriety). The court determined that mother could not become fit
4 within a reasonable time considering that (1) the case had been
open for almost three years; (2) mother had not established sobriety
or progressed beyond supervised visits; and (3) the child had been
in out-of-home placement for much of his life and needed
permanency as soon as possible. See S.Z.S., ¶ 24; D.L.C., 70 P.3d
at 588-89.
¶ 12 The record supports the juvenile court’s findings. The
caseworker — who was qualified as an expert in the field of child
protection — testified that mother started three different substance
abuse evaluations, but she did not begin any treatment until two
years into the case. Mother had not completed a drug screen since
August 2021, which was positive for methamphetamine. Indeed,
the caseworker testified that the Department tried but was
unsuccessful in getting mother to take additional drug tests. And
mother continued to deny that she had a drug problem. As for
family time, the caseworker testified that mother attended
inconsistently at first, but she had been more consistent recently.
See People in Interest of V.W., 958 P.2d 1132, 1134-35 (Colo. App.
1998) (noting that even “increased compliance” over the course of a
case may not justify additional time). But mother’s visits remained
5 supervised after nearly three years. The caseworker opined that,
considering the EPP guidelines, mother could not become fit in a
reasonable time because the case had been open since 2021 and
mother had “every possible service to help rehabilitate” her.
¶ 13 Nevertheless, mother asserts that the juvenile court erred
because she made sufficient progress during the case to warrant
additional time. For example, mother notes that she participated in
substance abuse evaluations and some treatment, attended
individual therapy, had stable housing, and formed a bond with the
child by engaging in family time. To be sure, the court recognized
that mother had done some work during the case, and it
commended her for her efforts in the areas described above.
Nonetheless, the court found, with record support, that mother was
unlikely to become fit within a reasonable time based, in large part,
on her resistance to addressing her substance dependence issues
and establishing sobriety. It is not our role to reweigh the evidence
or substitute our judgment for that of the juvenile court. See S.Z.S.,
¶ 29. And because the record supports the court’s findings, we
have no basis to disturb them. See id. We therefore reject mother’s
assertion.
6 ¶ 14 Mother also notes that her ability to fully participate in
treatment, sobriety monitoring, and family time was hampered by
her transportation issues. But the record shows that the
Department provided mother with bus tickets to reach her service
providers, and the court found that the Department made
reasonable efforts to assist mother in complying with her treatment
plan. See § 19-3-208(2)(d)(I), C.R.S. 2024 (requiring a department
to provide transportation under some circumstances to satisfy its
reasonable efforts obligation). Because the record supports the
court’s finding that the Department made reasonable efforts to
provide mother with transportation to her services, we discern no
error.
III. Disposition
¶ 15 The judgment is affirmed.
JUDGE HARRIS and JUDGE YUN concur.