2019 COA 151
Colo. Ct. App.2019Background:
- In Dec 2017 Adams County filed a dependency and neglect petition concerning an eight‑year‑old; the child was adjudicated dependent and neglected.
- Mother (M.S.O.) was a noncustodial natural parent living in Ohio; the juvenile court adopted a treatment plan requiring contact, drug testing, and cooperation with an ICPC home study for placement in Ohio.
- Ohio authorities conducted the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC) home study and reported the home was not approved due to mother’s past child‑welfare history and positive marijuana tests.
- The Colorado caseworker concluded the child could not lawfully be placed with mother after the failed ICPC study and did not refer mother to local (Ohio) services or substance‑abuse treatment; no counseling or placement services were provided.
- The juvenile court terminated mother’s parental rights, finding the Department had made reasonable efforts; mother appealed, arguing the court and Department treated the failed ICPC home study as relieving the Department’s duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify.
- The Court of Appeals held that a failed ICPC home study does not absolve the Department of its statutory obligation to make reasonable efforts to rehabilitate and reunify, and remanded for the juvenile court to clarify its findings on reasonable efforts and applicable factors.
Issues:
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Department/People’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a failed ICPC home study excuses the Department from making reasonable efforts to rehabilitate and reunify with an out‑of‑state parent | A failed ICPC study does not relieve the Department; it must provide reasonable efforts to help remedy deficiencies so placement becomes possible | A failed ICPC study makes placement unlawful, so the Department need not provide services or pursue reunification with an out‑of‑state parent | A failed ICPC study does not absolve the Department of reasonable‑efforts obligations; remand for clarification whether the juvenile court applied the correct legal standard |
| Whether the juvenile court’s findings adequately show the Department made reasonable efforts beyond facilitating the ICPC study | Court relied on the ICPC study as the major part of the treatment plan and thus concluded reasonable efforts were met | The Department believed facilitating the ICPC study was dispositive and offered no additional services because placement was deemed unlawful | The appellate court could not determine if the juvenile court applied the correct legal standard; it ordered a limited remand for explicit findings on reasonable efforts and any other § 19‑3‑604(2) factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (constitutional protections for parental rights in termination proceedings)
- People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1982) (parental‑rights protections under state law)
- People in Interest of A.J.L., 243 P.3d 244 (Colo. 2010) (standard of review for legal questions in juvenile proceedings)
- People in Interest of C.A.K., 652 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1982) (deference to juvenile court findings on credibility and inferences)
- People in Interest of J.A.S., 160 P.3d 257 (Colo. App. 2007) (reasonable‑efforts standard met when services comply with statutory requirements)