Peo in Interest of WW, 24CA1036

The Larimer County Department of Human Services filed a dependency and neglect petition regarding W.W. and C.W., alleging that their father, J.W., had sexually abused C.W. and physically abused both children.
J.W. stipulated to a “no-fault” adjudication and agreed to a treatment plan which required, among other things, a psychological evaluation with a sexual abuse focus.
The parties could not agree on an evaluator, so the juvenile court appointed Dr. Bartels; J.W. refused to participate in her evaluation, instead obtaining his own evaluations.
Over the course of three years, J.W. failed to progress in the treatment plan, especially in rebuilding relationships and demonstrating adequate parental improvements, leading to a motion to terminate parental rights.
The juvenile court terminated J.W.'s parental rights after a multi-day hearing, finding the treatment plan was appropriate, J.W. was unfit, and no less drastic alternative to termination existed.

Issue	J.W.'s Argument	People/Department's Argument	Held
Appropriateness of Treatment Plan	Plan as implemented was improper due to SOMB evaluator and planned use of specific assessment tool (LOOK)	Evaluator and tools did not violate stipulation or require SOMB standards/admissions; plan was appropriate	Treatment plan, as implemented, was appropriate
Requirement to Complete SOMB Evaluation	Cannot be required to do SOMB/psychosexual eval without conviction	Plan didn’t require actual SOMB evaluation or admission, only a psychological evaluation with sexual focus	No violation; plan did not require SOMB evaluation
Unfitness Finding	Court did not properly specify unfitness or consider all statutory bases	Sufficient evidence of failure to provide reasonable parental care; persistent lack of progress and failure to engage	Unfitness finding sufficient and supported by record
Less Drastic Alternatives	Alternatives like APR to mother or modified plan should have been chosen	Children required permanency; APR or alternative plans not viable or in children’s best interest	No viable less drastic alternative; termination affirmed

People in Interest of D.P., 160 P.3d 351 (Colo. App. 2007) (A treatment plan is not inappropriate just because it is unsuccessful.)
People in Interest of B.C., 122 P.3d 1067 (Colo. App. 2005) (Appropriateness of treatment plan must be assessed at time of approval.)
People in Interest of C.L.S., 934 P.2d 851 (Colo. App. 1996) (Juvenile court may address material barriers to reunification, even if not basis of adjudication.)
People in Interest of A.J., 143 P.3d 1143 (Colo. App. 2006) (Defines reasonable parental care in termination context.)
People in Interest of J.M.B., 60 P.3d 790 (Colo. App. 2002) (Adequacy of findings reviewed in context of statutory criteria.)