Peo in Interest of LBN

Opinion

25CA2086 Peo in Interest of LBN 07-30-2026

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 25CA2086 Arapahoe County District Court No. 23JV399 Honorable Shay Whitaker, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Appellee,

In the Interest of L.B.N. and B.B.N., Children,

and Concerning V.N.C.,

Appellant.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division II Opinion by JUDGE TOW Harris and Brown, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced July 30, 2026

John Christofferson, Interim County Attorney, Alison A. Bettenberg, Assistant County Attorney, Aurora, Colorado, for Appellee

Angela M. Compton, Guardian Ad Litem

Patrick R. Henson, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Chelsea A. Carr, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 In this dependency and neglect proceeding, V.N.C. (mother)

appeals the juvenile court’s order revoking her deferred

adjudication and adjudicating L.B.N. and B.B.N. (the children)

dependent and neglected. We affirm the judgment.

I. Background

¶2 The Arapahoe County Department of Human Services filed a

petition in dependency or neglect based on mother’s mental health

struggles. The Department later amended the petition to include

allegations of ongoing domestic violence between mother, the

children’s father, and mother’s husband.

¶3 Mother admitted that the children were homeless, without

proper care, or not domiciled with their parent, guardian, or legal

custodian through no fault of mother. The parties agreed to defer

the adjudication for at least six months conditioned on mother’s

compliance with an appropriate treatment plan adopted by the

juvenile court.

¶4 The court adopted a treatment plan requiring that mother,

among other things, (1) maintain contact with the Department’s

caseworker; (2) participate in regular family time; (3) complete a

mental health evaluation and engage in recommended treatment;

1 (4) demonstrate the ability to be a protective parent; (5) maintain

legal income; and (6) obtain safe and stable housing.

¶5 After six months, the court extended the deferred adjudication

for an additional six months. The Department then moved to

revoke the deferred adjudication and adjudicate the children

dependent or neglected based on mother’s inability to provide the

children with a safe and stable home, maintain employment, or

demonstrate a protective capacity for the children. In a separate

motion, the Department moved to amend mother’s treatment plan

to include a component requiring that she participate in domestic

violence victim services.

¶6 The juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing, revoked

mother’s deferred adjudication, and entered the judgment

adjudicating the children dependent and neglected. In addition, the

court granted the Department’s motion to amend mother’s

treatment plan.

II. Treatment Plan Compliance

¶7 Mother contends that the juvenile court erred by entering an

order of adjudication because the Department failed to prove that

she did not comply with her treatment plan. We disagree.

2 A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review

¶8 In dependency and neglect proceedings, an adjudication

represents the juvenile court’s determination that state intervention

is necessary to protect a child and that the parent requires

rehabilitative services to safely care for the child. People in Interest

of J.G., 2016 CO 39, ¶ 16. Typically, before adjudicating a child

dependent or neglected, the court must hold a hearing at which the

department is required to prove the allegations in the petition by a

preponderance of the evidence. Id.; see also § 19-3-505, C.R.S.

2025. Alternatively, the court may accept a parent’s admission at

an adjudicatory hearing. People in Interest of J.W. v. C.O., 2017 CO

105, ¶ 32. “The court’s acceptance of [a parent’s] admission

establishe[s] the status of the child[] as dependent or

neglected . . . .” Id.

¶9 When a parent admits that a child is dependent or neglected,

the juvenile court may defer adjudication by continuing the

adjudicatory hearing. § 19-3-505(5). Specifically, when a parent

admits the child is dependent or neglected, a deferred adjudication

allows the court, with all parties’ consent, to continue the

adjudicatory hearing for six months and to defer entry of judgment.

3 § 19-3-505(5)(a)-(b). Following the initial six-month period, the

court may continue the hearing for another six months, after which

the court must dismiss or sustain the petition. § 19-3-505(5)(b).

¶ 10 In determining whether to revoke a deferred adjudication, the

juvenile court may consider the parent’s admission made when the

deferral was entered, along with any evidence related to the

progress the parent has made and the ongoing needs and status of

the child. See People in Interest of N.G., 2012 COA 131, ¶¶ 26-27.

¶ 11 Whether a child is dependent or neglected presents a mixed

question of fact and law because it requires the application of the

statutory criteria to evidentiary facts. See People in Interest of E.R.,

2018 COA 58, ¶ 5. We review the court’s factual findings for clear

error but review de novo its legal conclusions based on those facts.

People in Interest of A.S.L., 2022 COA 146, ¶ 8.

B. Analysis

¶ 12 Mother argues that she was in “substantial compliance with

the intent” of the deferred adjudication and that the juvenile court

erred when it revoked the deferred adjudication “where there was

no violation of the written terms” of the agreement. We disagree.

4 ¶ 13 The juvenile court found that “some boxes have been checked

off” with regard to the treatment plan objectives but ultimately

found that mother had not resolved the issues that brought the

family to the attention of the Department. The court recognized

that its only choice at the time was to either revoke the deferred

adjudication or dismiss the dependency proceeding entirely and end

the Department’s involvement. Ultimately, the court found that,

although mother had “lessened” or “ameliorated” the mental health

concerns, the family still had other issues to be resolved before the

children could return to mother’s care.

¶ 14 The record supports the juvenile court’s findings. The

caseworker, who was qualified as an expert in casework with an

emphasis in child protection, testified that although mother had

complied with the caseworker contact component, she had not fully

complied with, completed, or been successful with the other

objectives of her treatment plan.

¶ 15 The caseworker testified that mother completed a mental

health evaluation and consistently attended sessions with a

therapist. But mother had not developed necessary coping skills

and strategies, nor had she managed interpersonal and emotional

5 issues as required by the treatment plan, though she continued to

work on these objectives. The caseworker illustrated this by

explaining that mother’s interactions with others continued to be

inappropriate and were “sometimes physical, but at other times,

verbal.” And although mother was starting to recognize the impact

that her actions had on the children, the caseworker had not seen

behavioral changes that demonstrated mother’s understanding.

¶ 16 As far as protective parenting, the caseworker testified that

mother had started to understand the cause-and-effect relationship

between her actions and effects on the children and, at times, had

taken physical action to protect the children. But the caseworker

also testified that mother had not been able to show a protective

capacity long term and that she continued to put herself and the

children in unsafe situations with unsafe people.

¶ 17 With respect to family time, although mother had

unsupervised visits for part of the case, the visits had recently been

modified to supervised by kin because mother had not followed the

safety plan requiring that her husband not be present during visits

with the children. And the court heard about a domestic violence

incident involving her husband at maternal grandparents’ house,

6 where the children were present. In sum, the caseworker testified

that the inconsistencies between mother’s statements and

behaviors and reports the caseworker received from others made it

very difficult to assess what progress mother had made on the

treatment plan objectives.

¶ 18 Lastly, the caseworker testified that mother had not yet

secured employment and a legal income. In addition, because

mother continued to live in an apartment her husband paid for, she

remained subject to his power and control over her living situation.

As a result, mother still lacked the stable home called for in her

¶ 19 In sum, the caseworker testified that mother had not complied

with the treatment plan as a whole and, at the time of the

revocation hearing, was not fit to parent the children.

¶ 20 To support her argument that the juvenile court erred, mother

points to evidence that she was in substantial compliance with

several components of her treatment plan. But the court

acknowledged mother’s efforts and still determined that she had not

truly resolved the issues that brought the family to the attention of

the Department. Because the court’s factual findings regarding

7 mother’s fitness and whether the child was dependent or neglected

have record support, we defer to them. And, considering de novo

the impact of these findings, we discern no error in the court’s

ultimate conclusion that the adjudication should enter.

¶ 21 To the extent mother alleges that the juvenile court erred by

finding she was not complying with the domestic violence victim

services component of her treatment plan that had not yet been

adopted, we disagree. The court heard evidence that mother was

receiving domestic violence victim services at the time of the

revocation hearing. But it amended the treatment plan to require

mother to engage in those services only after it revoked the deferred

adjudication.

III. Disposition

¶ 22 We affirm the judgment.

JUDGE HARRIS and JUDGE BROWN concur.