People ex rel. A.J.L., 2010 Colo. LEXIS 909

This matter arises from People in the Interest of AJ.L., and the Court reviews the termination of the parent-child relationship between AP.L. and her two children, AKMLH and Q.D.J.W., following trial court findings of unfitness and unlikely change within a reasonable time.
The trial court terminated the parental relationship under §19-8-604(1)(c) after concluding mother did not reasonably comply with an approved treatment plan and was unfit.
The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding the People failed to prove unfitness and likely change by clear and convincing evidence.
The Supreme Court addresses whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the clearly erroneous standard and whether the termination standards under the Colorado Children’s Code were appropriately applied.
Mother and father histories include domestic violence, substance abuse, and prior involvement with CCDHS dating back to 2005; mother moved to Montana, continued deception regarding a relationship with C.W., and faced ongoing substantiated concerns about parenting safety; expert and collateral evidence supported the trial court’s termination decision.
The Court reinstates the trial court’s termination order, concluding the evidence, when viewed with proper deference to trial court credibility determinations, supports unfitness and lack of likely change within a reasonable time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Court of Appeals’ application of the clearly erroneous standard correct?	People argues trial findings were not clearly erroneous.	AP.L. argues the Court of Appeals properly weighed evidence.	No; the appellate court erred in substituting its judgment for the trial court.
Do clear and convincing findings support unfitness and likelihood of no change within a reasonable time?	People contends record shows unfitness and unlikely change.	AP.L. contends later evidence undermines trial findings.	Yes; substantial evidence supports unfitness and unlikelihood of change.
Should the court give greater weight to more recent Montana evidence over earlier evaluations?	People contends newer evaluations undermine older findings.	AP.L. asserts the trial court may exercise discretion on weight of evidence.	No; trial court was not required to defer to newer evidence; credibility determinations reside with the trial court.
Was the trial court’s weighing of C.W.’s presence in the home and related safety conclusions proper?	People argues absence of C.W. in Montana showed safer environment.	AP.L. asserts C.W.’s conduct and risk remained in question.	Yes; trial court reasonably found C.W.’s presence dangerous and not safe for the children.
Did expedited placement and the children’s ages justify the termination?	People contends permanency was urgent.	AP.L. questions timing.	Yes; the court found permanency and safety considerations favored termination.

People v. KD., 139 P.3d 695 (Colo. 2006) (standard for deference to trial court credibility determinations in weighing evidence)
People in Interest of C.A.K., 652 P.2d 608 (Colo.1982) (clearly erroneous standard; cannot substitute appellate findings for trial court)
People v. L.D., 671 P.2d 940 (Colo. 1988) (trial court may weigh newer evidence but not required to give it control over credibility)
Page v. Clark, 197 Colo. 306 (Colo. 1979) (deference to trial court's assessment of witness credibility and evidence weight)
In re T.D., 140 P.3d 205 (Colo.App.2006) (cites weighting of evidence and credibility in termination context)