Peo in Interest of MS-T

Opinion

26CA0300 Peo in Interest of MS-T 09-03-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 26CA0300 El Paso County District Court No. 24JV30678 Honorable Karen Parrott, Magistrate Honorable Robin Chittum, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado, Appellee, In the Interest of M.S-T., Am.S-T., and Ad.S-T., Children, and Concerning T.S., Appellant.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division I

Opinion by JUDGE DUNN

J. Jones and Navarro*, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)

Announced September 3, 2026

Kenny Hodges, County Attorney, Melanie E. Gavisk, Senior County Attorney, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Appellee

Josi McCauley, Guardian Ad Litem, for M.S-T. Josie L. Burt, Counsel for Youth, Carbondale, Colorado, for M.S-T. Josi McCauley, Counsel for Youth, Superior, Colorado, for Am.S-T. Debra W. Dodd, Counsel for Youth, Berthoud, Colorado, for Ad.S-T.

The Morgan Law Office, Kristofr P. Morgan, Colorado Springs, 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. 2026.

¶1 T.S. (mother) appeals the judgment adjudicating M.S-T., Am.S- T., and Ad.S-T. (the children) dependent or neglected. We affirm.

I. Background

¶2 The El Paso County Department of Human Services filed a petition in dependency and neglect, alleging among other things, that (1) the family was without housing; (2) Ad.S-T. sexually abused Am.S-T., and mother didn’t take any action to protect Am.S-T.; and (3) Ad.S-T. had a history of substance use.

¶3 The Department took custody of the children. A few months later, the Department returned M.S-T. to mother’s home. Am.S-T. remained in foster care, and the Department placed Ad.S-T. in a residential treatment facility.

¶4 Mother first admitted but later denied that the children were dependent or neglected. Mother then requested an adjudicatory jury trial. After trial, the jury found the children dependent or neglected under section 19-3-102(1)(a)-(e), C.R.S. 2026. Based on the verdict, the juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent or neglected. About seven months later, the court adopted a treatment plan for mother.

2

II. The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA)

¶5 Mother asserts that because “the record does not demonstrate” that the Department complied with ICWA’s due diligence requirements, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1963, she “cannot state” that the juvenile court complied with ICWA. But beyond this, mother doesn’t claim that ICWA applies or that the juvenile court erred by finding that ICWA doesn’t apply. Absent any specific contention of error, there’s no ICWA issue for us to review. See People in Interest of M.B., 2020 COA 13, ¶ 64 (declining to review a juvenile court finding without a developed argument).

III. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶6 Mother argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding that the children were dependent or neglected.1 We disagree.

¶7 To determine whether the jury’s verdict is supported by the evidence, we view the record in the light most favorable to the Department and draw every inference in favor of adjudication. See

1 To the extent mother purports to separately appeal the

dispositional order, she fails to make any arguments addressing that order. We therefore don’t review it. See People in Interest of M.B., 2020 COA 13, ¶ 64.

3

People in Interest of S.G.L., 214 P.3d 580, 583 (Colo. App. 2009). We are bound by the jury’s findings and may not disturb the verdict unless it lacks record support. Id.

¶8 A child is dependent or neglected if, as relevant here, (1) a parent subjects the child to mistreatment or abuse, or allows another to mistreat or abuse the child without taking lawful means to stop it or prevent it from reoccurring; (2) the child lacks proper parental care through the parent’s actions or omissions; (3) the child’s environment is injurious to the child’s welfare; (4) a parent fails or refuses to provide the child with proper or necessary subsistence, education, medical care, or any other care necessary for the child’s health, guidance, or well-being; or (5) the child is homeless, without proper care, by no fault of the parent. § 19-3-102(1)(a)-(e). A child may be adjudicated dependent or neglected if the government proves that even one statutory ground exists. See People in Interest of S.M-L., 2016 COA 173, ¶ 25, aff’d on other grounds sub nom. People in Interest of R.S. v. G.S., 2018 CO 31.

¶9 Am.S-T. testified, among other things, that

4

• Ad.S-T. sexually abused her for about two years, and mother neither believed her nor did anything to protect her;

• mother smoked marijuana with Ad.S-T.;

• Ad.S-T. started a fire while smoking marijuana that destroyed mother’s car;

• the family “didn’t have that much food”; and • Am.S-T. would harm herself or end her life if she was forced to return to mother’s home.

¶ 10 Mother’s testimony largely echoed Am.S-T.’s testimony. Indeed, mother admitted that the family had lived in apartments, motels, and her car; she didn’t believe Am.S-T.’s disclosure that Ad.S-T. had “touched” Am.S-T.; she didn’t know that Am.S-T. struggled with depression or general anxiety; Ad.S-T. smoked marijuana (but she only smoked CBD with him); and Ad.S-T. had set her car on fire after failing to put out a marijuana “roach” that he had taken from her.

¶ 11 The evidence about Ad.S-T.’s substance use and alleged sexual abuse of Am.S-T. alone was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that mother subjected the children to mistreatment or abuse, or

5

allowed another to mistreat or abuse them without taking lawful means to stop it or prevent it from reoccurring; that the children lacked proper parental care through mother’s actions or omissions; and that their environment was injurious to their welfare. See § 19-3-102(1)(a)-(c).

¶ 12 Still, mother asserts that the juvenile court shouldn’t have adjudicated the children dependent or neglected because she “had addressed” the concerns raised in the petition at the time of the adjudicatory trial. But an adjudication may be based on past, current, or prospective harm. People in Interest of G.E.S., 2016 COA 183, ¶ 15. To determine whether a child is dependent or neglected based on prospective harm, the fact finder’s task is to determine whether the child’s environment “‘will’ be” injurious to the child if the child is placed in the parent’s care. People in Interest of S.N., 2014 COA 116, ¶ 16.

¶ 13 While some evidence suggested that mother had housing at the time of the adjudicatory hearing, no evidence was presented that Ad.S-T.’s admitted substance use had been addressed, let alone resolved. And the caseworker testified that at the time of the trial, mother had refused to sign releases for Ad.S-T., which could

6

prevent him from continuing to receive services at his residential treatment facility. Nor did mother acknowledge or address Am.S- T.’s sexual abuse allegations or her mental health struggles. If any doubt remained about possible injury to Am.S-T. if placed with mother, Am.S-T. confirmed that she would self-injure or kill herself if she was returned to mother’s care.

¶ 14 Thus, the jury could reasonably have inferred from the evidence presented that mother hadn’t addressed the more serious safety concerns alleged in the petition and that the children were dependent or neglected based on past, current, or prospective harm.

¶ 15 We therefore conclude that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict adjudicating the children dependent or neglected.

IV. Disposition

¶ 16 The judgment is affirmed.

JUDGE J. JONES and JUDGE NAVARRO concur.