25CA1997
Colo. Ct. App.
May 7, 2026
Read the full case

Background

  • The Department received a 2023 referral that father had dementia, believed mother and the children were strangers, and physically harmed the children, then later removed the children after reports of mother’s substance use, anger, aggression, and threats. 1
  • The juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent and neglected, adopted treatment plans, and later terminated both parents’ parental rights after a multi-day hearing. 2
  • Father filed an ADA notice based on vascular dementia and cancer but requested no specific accommodations, and later moved to a nursing home for the rest of the case. 3
  • The court found no treatment plan could make father a custodial parent, but adopted a plan allowing ongoing contact, family time, medical releases, and physical therapy participation. 4
  • Mother’s plan required sobriety, UAs, mental-health treatment, family time, income stability, and safe housing, but the court found she had not sufficiently progressed and could not become fit within a reasonable time. 5
  • Both parents argued no less drastic alternative to termination existed, but the court found termination and adoption were in the children’s best interests. 6

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Did the Department make reasonable efforts and ADA accommodations for father? 7 Father said services ignored his dementia and lacked reasonable accommodations. The Department said it provided appropriate services and father sought no specific modifications. Yes; the Department made reasonable efforts and adequate accommodations. 8
Could mother become fit within a reasonable time? 9 Mother argued she made substantial progress and should have more time. The Department said mother still lacked sobriety, anger control, and compliance. No; record supported unfitness and no reasonable-time change. 10
Were there viable less drastic alternatives to termination? 11 Parents argued an APR or continued relationship was a better option. The Department said alternatives would not meet the children’s needs or best interests. No; termination was properly ordered as the best option. 12

Key Cases Cited

  • People in Interest of A.M. v. T.M., 2021 CO 14 (Colo. 2021) (termination and reasonable-efforts review is a mixed question of fact and law 13)
  • People in Interest of A.S.L., 2022 COA 146 (Colo. App. 2022) (same standard of review applies to reasonable-efforts findings 14)
  • People in Interest of S.R.N.J-S., 2020 COA 12 (Colo. App. 2020) (factual findings are reviewed for clear error and legal conclusions de novo 15)
  • People in Interest of C.Z., 2015 COA 87 (Colo. App. 2015) (public child-welfare agencies must make reasonable ADA accommodations when on notice of disability 16)
  • People in Interest of S.K., 2019 COA 36 (Colo. App. 2019) (ADA accommodations must be considered in the reasonable-efforts analysis 17)
  • People in Interest of J.C.R., 259 P.3d 1279 (Colo. App. 2011) (parent is responsible for using services to comply with a treatment plan 18)
  • People in Interest of My.K.M. v. V.K.L., 2022 CO 35 (Colo. 2022) (reasonable-efforts analysis considers the totality of services and resources holistically 19)
  • People in Interest of D.P., 160 P.3d 351 (Colo. App. 2007) (defines parental unfitness as inability to provide reasonable parental care 20)
  • People in Interest of S.Z.S., 2022 COA 133 (Colo. App. 2022) (reasonable-time analysis may consider changes during the case, history, and chronic conditions 21)
  • People in Interest of E.W., 2022 COA 12 (Colo. App. 2022) (less-drastic-alternatives findings are reviewed for clear error 22)
  • People in Interest of B.H., 2021 CO 39 (Colo. 2021) (affirmance is required if the record supports termination after considering alternatives 23)
  • People in Interest of N.D.V., 224 P.3d 410 (Colo. App. 2009) (bond with the parent is a factor in evaluating less drastic alternatives 24)
  • People in Interest of T.E.M., 124 P.3d 905 (Colo. App. 2005) (APR must provide adequate permanence and stability 25)
  • People in Interest of A.R., 2012 COA 195M (Colo. App. 2012) (ongoing relationship with a parent matters only if beneficial to the child 26)
  • People in Interest of S.N-V., 300 P.3d 911 (Colo. App. 2011) (permanency options and foster-parent preferences are relevant to alternative-placement analysis 27)
  • People in Interest of P.D., 580 P.2d 836 (Colo. App. 1978) (a court cannot impose APR on an unwilling nonparent party 28)
Read the full case