Peo in Interest of NB-P, 25CA0661

Adams County DHS filed a dependency and neglect petition after the child was born substance-exposed and parents had substance-use concerns.
Father admitted the child was homeless/not domiciled through no fault of the father; the court accepted the admission and entered a six-month deferred adjudication conditioned on a court-ordered treatment plan.
Treatment-plan obligations included maintaining communication with the Department (when not incarcerated), participating in family time, remaining substance-free, addressing criminal cases, and improving parenting skills.
The court extended the deferral for an additional six months; during the case father was incarcerated for about six months, was unreachable for roughly seven months after release, and admitted he relapsed.
Father entered inpatient treatment only days before the adjudicatory hearing; the Department moved to adjudicate for lack of parental progress and the child’s young age.
The juvenile court found father was difficult to reach, had longstanding, inadequately treated substance-use issues, could not immediately provide a home or visits, revoked the deferral, and adjudicated the child dependent and neglected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHS proved father failed to comply with the deferred adjudication treatment plan	Father did not comply: he was difficult to reach, failed to demonstrate sustained sobriety or completed treatment, and did not engage in family time	Father said he was in contact for the majority of the case and had engaged in substantial treatment and sobriety	Court affirmed: record supports findings father was often unreachable, relapsed after release, and had not completed adequate treatment
Whether returning the child to father would provide proper parental care	Returning the child would be unsafe because father lacked demonstrated sobriety, had not re-established family time, and had no stable home	Father asserted recent treatment made him capable of care	Court affirmed: father could not currently care for the child; no family time since release, inpatient treatment still in orientation, and no verifiable sobriety
Whether the timing of the revocation hearing (beyond the statutory timeframe) voided jurisdiction or required reversal	DHS: timing issue not raised as a basis for appeal	Father did not argue statutory-timing error on appeal	Court noted the hearing exceeded the statutory window but retained jurisdiction and declined to address the unraised timing issue

People in Interest of J.G., 370 P.3d 1151 (Colo. 2016) (adjudication requires a hearing and proof by a preponderance of the evidence)
People in Interest of J.W. v. C.O., 406 P.3d 853 (Colo. 2017) (a parent’s admission establishes dependent/neglected status)
People in Interest of N.G., 303 P.3d 1207 (Colo. App. 2012) (court may consider initial admission plus evidence of parental progress when extending a deferral)
People in Interest of E.R., 463 P.3d 872 (Colo. App. 2018) (dependency/neglect determinations present mixed questions of fact and law)
People in Interest of A.S.L., 527 P.3d 404 (Colo. App. 2022) (appellate review: factual findings for clear error; legal conclusions de novo)
In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning B.R.D., 280 P.3d 78 (Colo. App. 2012) (trial-court findings supported by the record are binding on review)
People in Interest of A.W., 74 P.3d 497 (Colo. App. 2003) (juvenile court retains jurisdiction despite noncompliance with statutory timing for hearings)