24CA2102 Peo in Interest of LOW 05-29-2025
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 24CA2102 Jefferson County District Court No. 23JV30170 Honorable Lindsay Van Gilder, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Petitioner,
In the Interest of L.O.W., a Child,
and Concerning L.T.W.,
Appellant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Division VI Opinion by JUDGE TOW Yun and Sullivan, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 29, 2025
Kimberly S. Sorrells, County Attorney, Sarah Oviatt, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Golden, Colorado, for Petitioner
Robert G. Tweedell, Guardian Ad Litem
Patrick R. Henson, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Justin Twardowski, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 L.T.W. (mother) appeals the judgment allocating parental
responsibilities for L.O.W. (the child). In particular, she challenges
the amount of overnight family time awarded to B.S. (father). We
affirm.
I. Background
¶2 The Jefferson County Division of Children, Youth and Families
(the Division) filed a petition in dependency and neglect regarding
the then-newborn child due to concerns about the parents’
substance use. The juvenile court granted temporary legal custody
to the Division, and the child was placed with maternal
grandparents.
¶3 The juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent and
adopted treatment plans for the parents. The parents’ treatment
plans required them to demonstrate sobriety as well as an ability to
meet the child’s physical, emotional, and developmental needs.
Father’s treatment plan also required him to create an environment
for the child that is free of violence.
¶4 About six months later, the Division filed a motion for
allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) to maternal
grandparents. However, after father demonstrated continued
1 sobriety, the Division withdrew the motion so the parties could
work toward returning the child home to father. Less than two
weeks later, father had positive drug tests and missed group
sessions, leading the Division to request that father’s parenting time
be supervised.
¶5 The Division then refiled the APR motion. Before the hearing
on this motion, the parties reached an agreement that (1) maternal
grandparents would have joint decision-making responsibility and
primary residential care; (2) father’s family time would be
supervised by paternal grandmother; (3) mother’s family time would
be supervised by maternal grandparents; (4) the supervising
grandparent could ask the parent to leave if he or she appeared to
be under the influence or unsafe to the child in any way; and (5) if
father were to become incarcerated, paternal grandmother would
have one overnight per week.
¶6 The only disputed issue was whether father’s family time with
the child should include two or three overnights per week.
Following the hearing, the juvenile court awarded father three
overnights per week.
2 II. Discussion
¶7 Mother asserts the juvenile court erred by granting father
three overnights with the child. We disagree.
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
¶8 The Children’s Code authorizes a juvenile court to enter an
APR when it maintains jurisdiction in a case involving a dependent
and neglected child. § 19-1-104(5)-(6), C.R.S. 2024; People in
Interest of E.Q., 2020 COA 118, ¶ 10. When doing so, a juvenile
court must consider the legislative purposes of the Children’s Code
under section 19-1-102, C.R.S. 2024. See People in Interest of
A.S.L., 2022 COA 146, ¶ 12. The overriding purpose of the
Children’s Code is to protect a child’s safety and welfare by
providing procedures to serve the child’s best interests. L.G. v.
People, 890 P.2d 647, 654 (Colo. 1995). Consequently, the court
must allocate parental responsibilities in accordance with the
child’s best interests. L.A.G. v. People in Interest of A.A.G., 912 P.2d
1385, 1391 (Colo. 1996).
¶9 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
3 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. 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 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
¶ 10 As part of the APR judgment, the juvenile court found that it
was in the child’s best interests to have three overnights per week
with father. The court focused on the importance of the child’s
bond with both parents; the love and care she received from both
families; and the benefit to the child of maintaining consistency in
her schedule.
¶ 11 The evidence supports these findings. The caseworker
testified that three overnights with father had been the child’s
4 schedule for over three months and was part of her routine. The
Division’s family services plan, admitted into evidence, reflected
that (1) the child had a routine in father’s household; (2) father took
the child to various activities when they were together; (3) father
had a strong bond with the child; and (4) father ensured the child’s
needs were met during their time together. The caseworker further
testified that the child was appropriately loved and cared for during
father’s family time and that she deserved to continue to develop
her bond with father as much as possible. Thus, the caseworker
did not believe it was in the child’s best interests to reduce her time
with father.
¶ 12 Mother asserts that, considering concerns about father’s
pending criminal charges, sobriety, and domestic violence, it is
“likely” he will soon be incarcerated. Therefore, mother contends,
two overnights would cause less disruption for the child should her
schedule change due to father’s incarceration. The Division’s family
services plan referenced father’s “pending criminal matters” and the
caseworker testified that it was “possible” father could be sentenced
to some jail time. However, there was no other evidence regarding
father’s criminal matters, including any evidence supporting
5 mother’s claim that she expected father to face jail time due to
domestic violence concerns. Additionally, there was no evidence
that jail time for father was likely or imminent. See id. at ¶ 29 (the
court’s determination of a child’s best interests must be based on
circumstances existing at the time of the proceeding); see also
DiCocco v. Nat’l Gen. Ins. Co., 140 P.3d 314
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
24CA2102 Peo in Interest of LOW 05-29-2025
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 24CA2102 Jefferson County District Court No. 23JV30170 Honorable Lindsay Van Gilder, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Petitioner,
In the Interest of L.O.W., a Child,
and Concerning L.T.W.,
Appellant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Division VI Opinion by JUDGE TOW Yun and Sullivan, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 29, 2025
Kimberly S. Sorrells, County Attorney, Sarah Oviatt, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Golden, Colorado, for Petitioner
Robert G. Tweedell, Guardian Ad Litem
Patrick R. Henson, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Justin Twardowski, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 L.T.W. (mother) appeals the judgment allocating parental
responsibilities for L.O.W. (the child). In particular, she challenges
the amount of overnight family time awarded to B.S. (father). We
affirm.
I. Background
¶2 The Jefferson County Division of Children, Youth and Families
(the Division) filed a petition in dependency and neglect regarding
the then-newborn child due to concerns about the parents’
substance use. The juvenile court granted temporary legal custody
to the Division, and the child was placed with maternal
grandparents.
¶3 The juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent and
adopted treatment plans for the parents. The parents’ treatment
plans required them to demonstrate sobriety as well as an ability to
meet the child’s physical, emotional, and developmental needs.
Father’s treatment plan also required him to create an environment
for the child that is free of violence.
¶4 About six months later, the Division filed a motion for
allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) to maternal
grandparents. However, after father demonstrated continued
1 sobriety, the Division withdrew the motion so the parties could
work toward returning the child home to father. Less than two
weeks later, father had positive drug tests and missed group
sessions, leading the Division to request that father’s parenting time
be supervised.
¶5 The Division then refiled the APR motion. Before the hearing
on this motion, the parties reached an agreement that (1) maternal
grandparents would have joint decision-making responsibility and
primary residential care; (2) father’s family time would be
supervised by paternal grandmother; (3) mother’s family time would
be supervised by maternal grandparents; (4) the supervising
grandparent could ask the parent to leave if he or she appeared to
be under the influence or unsafe to the child in any way; and (5) if
father were to become incarcerated, paternal grandmother would
have one overnight per week.
¶6 The only disputed issue was whether father’s family time with
the child should include two or three overnights per week.
Following the hearing, the juvenile court awarded father three
overnights per week.
2 II. Discussion
¶7 Mother asserts the juvenile court erred by granting father
three overnights with the child. We disagree.
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
¶8 The Children’s Code authorizes a juvenile court to enter an
APR when it maintains jurisdiction in a case involving a dependent
and neglected child. § 19-1-104(5)-(6), C.R.S. 2024; People in
Interest of E.Q., 2020 COA 118, ¶ 10. When doing so, a juvenile
court must consider the legislative purposes of the Children’s Code
under section 19-1-102, C.R.S. 2024. See People in Interest of
A.S.L., 2022 COA 146, ¶ 12. The overriding purpose of the
Children’s Code is to protect a child’s safety and welfare by
providing procedures to serve the child’s best interests. L.G. v.
People, 890 P.2d 647, 654 (Colo. 1995). Consequently, the court
must allocate parental responsibilities in accordance with the
child’s best interests. L.A.G. v. People in Interest of A.A.G., 912 P.2d
1385, 1391 (Colo. 1996).
¶9 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
3 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. 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 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
¶ 10 As part of the APR judgment, the juvenile court found that it
was in the child’s best interests to have three overnights per week
with father. The court focused on the importance of the child’s
bond with both parents; the love and care she received from both
families; and the benefit to the child of maintaining consistency in
her schedule.
¶ 11 The evidence supports these findings. The caseworker
testified that three overnights with father had been the child’s
4 schedule for over three months and was part of her routine. The
Division’s family services plan, admitted into evidence, reflected
that (1) the child had a routine in father’s household; (2) father took
the child to various activities when they were together; (3) father
had a strong bond with the child; and (4) father ensured the child’s
needs were met during their time together. The caseworker further
testified that the child was appropriately loved and cared for during
father’s family time and that she deserved to continue to develop
her bond with father as much as possible. Thus, the caseworker
did not believe it was in the child’s best interests to reduce her time
with father.
¶ 12 Mother asserts that, considering concerns about father’s
pending criminal charges, sobriety, and domestic violence, it is
“likely” he will soon be incarcerated. Therefore, mother contends,
two overnights would cause less disruption for the child should her
schedule change due to father’s incarceration. The Division’s family
services plan referenced father’s “pending criminal matters” and the
caseworker testified that it was “possible” father could be sentenced
to some jail time. However, there was no other evidence regarding
father’s criminal matters, including any evidence supporting
5 mother’s claim that she expected father to face jail time due to
domestic violence concerns. Additionally, there was no evidence
that jail time for father was likely or imminent. See id. at ¶ 29 (the
court’s determination of a child’s best interests must be based on
circumstances existing at the time of the proceeding); see also
DiCocco v. Nat’l Gen. Ins. Co., 140 P.3d 314, 316 (Colo. App. 2006)
(appellate courts do not address “uncertain or contingent future
matters”).
¶ 13 Mother further contends that, considering father’s substance
abuse, it is “very likely” that he would parent the child while under
the influence. However, as detailed above, regardless of whether
father has two or three overnights, all his family time is to be
supervised by paternal grandmother. Mother agreed to paternal
grandmother supervising father’s family time. And she did not
present any evidence that paternal grandmother had failed to
properly supervise father or allowed him to exercise family time
while under the influence. As a result, the juvenile court found,
with record support, that paternal grandmother was an
“appropriate and protective” supervisor.
6 ¶ 14 Considering all the evidence presented, the court found the
family time schedule to be in the child’s best interests. See People
in Interest of S.Z.S., 2022 COA 133, ¶ 29 (recognizing that we may
not reweigh the court’s resolution of conflicting evidence). Because
the record supports the juvenile court’s findings, we decline to
disturb them. See People in Interest of A.M.K., 68 P.3d 563, 565
(Colo. App. 2003). And because, in light of those facts, allocating
three weekly overnights of parenting time to father was neither a
misapplication of the law nor manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or
unfair, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion. See M.W., ¶
12.
III. Disposition
¶ 15 The judgment is affirmed.
JUDGE YUN and JUDGE SULLIVAN concur.