2021 COA 79
Colo. Ct. App.2021Background
- Arapahoe County DHS filed a dependency and neglect case in March 2018 concerning two children (ages three and one); father (F.S.) was not located and had outstanding warrants.
- The juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent and neglected and adopted a treatment plan for father requiring, among other things, that he clear his active warrants before participating in parenting time and complete a domestic-violence evaluation.
- The Department had a blanket policy prohibiting any parent with an outstanding warrant from receiving visitation services; father requested an exception but was denied.
- The Department moved to terminate father’s parental rights; following an evidentiary hearing the juvenile court terminated those rights in July 2020.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the Department’s blanket ban on visitation because of outstanding warrants violated the reasonable-efforts requirement unless the juvenile court found visitation would be detrimental to the children’s health or safety; the court remanded with directions to modify the treatment plan and afford visitation absent safety concerns.
- The court also addressed (and rejected) father’s challenge to the domestic-violence component of his plan, concluding record evidence (mother’s reports) supported including that requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a county DHS may categorically bar parental visitation solely because of outstanding arrest warrants | DHS: Its policy justified barring visitation until warrants resolved; juvenile court approved plan | Father: Blanket ban violates §19-3-208 and denied required visitation services; must be case-by-case | Reversed: DHS may not adopt a blanket prohibition; juvenile court must find visitation detrimental to health/safety before denying face-to-face visits |
| Whether father’s challenge to reasonable efforts was forfeited for failure to object below | DHS/GAL: Father did not preserve the objection | Father: Miscarriage-of-justice exception should allow review | Court avoided strict preservation rule, invoked miscarriage-of-justice exception and reviewed the claim |
| Whether requiring a domestic violence evaluation in father’s plan was inappropriate | Father: No domestic-violence history; component unnecessary | DHS: Plan based on reported facts and criminal-history references; juvenile court approved | Held appropriate: record supported inclusion based on mother’s reports and alleged criminal history |
Key Cases Cited
- People in Interest of A.M. v. T.M., 480 P.3d 682 (Colo. 2021) (discusses mixed question of fact and law in termination reviews)
- People in Interest of A.A., 479 P.3d 57 (Colo. App. 2020) (reversing where department withheld visitation absent court finding of harm)
- People in Interest of S.N-V., 300 P.3d 911 (Colo. App. 2011) (reasonable-efforts requirement review and scope)
- People in Interest of D.P., 160 P.3d 351 (Colo. App. 2007) (holding preservation rule requiring objection to reasonable-efforts deficiencies)
- People in Interest of D.G., 140 P.3d 299 (Colo. App. 2006) (juvenile court must assess health and safety before delegating visitation limits to a department)
- People in Interest of B.C., 122 P.3d 1067 (Colo. App. 2005) (treatment-plan review focuses on court’s role assessing child safety)
- People in Interest of K.C., 685 P.2d 1377 (Colo. App. 1984) (visitation may not be denied without court approval or knowledge)