2015 COA 87
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Weld County DHS filed a dependency and neglect petition (Nov 2018) after mother declined treatment for multiple mental-health diagnoses; father also had severe depression and both had prior terminations involving older children.
- Court removed child to Department custody and adjudicated the child dependent and neglected; court approved a treatment plan requiring evaluations, therapy, and therapeutic parenting time.
- After psychological and parent–child interactional evaluations, the Department moved to terminate parents’ rights under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-604(1)(b)(I), arguing no appropriate treatment plan could address the parents’ mental impairments.
- At a contested hearing the trial court found parents’ chronic/severe mental illnesses and cognitive deficits made them unlikely within a reasonable time to meet the child’s needs and that no services in Colorado could remediate those deficits; it terminated parental rights.
- Parents appealed, arguing (1) the ADA preempts § 19-3-604(1)(b)(I) because it permits termination without requiring accommodations/reparative services, and (2) equal protection and failure to provide reasonable efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA preemption of § 19-3-604(1)(b)(I) | Parents: ADA requires reasonable accommodations/services before excluding disabled parents from benefits; statute conflicts and is preempted | Dept: ADA not a defense to termination; statute does not conflict with ADA | Court: No conflict preemption — ADA governs provision of services but § 19-3-604(1)(b)(I) permits termination only when no appropriate treatment plan (i.e., no reasonable accommodations) can be devised |
| Applicability of ADA to dependency services | Parents: ADA applies to services and requires accommodations to permit participation | Dept: ADA not a defense to termination (but conceded Dept. is subject to ADA for services) | Court: ADA applies to public entities’ provision of assessments/services pre-termination; it does not bar termination where disability means no reasonable accommodation will enable parenting |
| Equal protection challenge | Father: Termination solely on basis of mental disability discriminates vs. nondisabled parents | Dept: Statute differentiates by likelihood to become fit, not by disability alone | Court: No violation — statute targets parents unlikely to become fit within a reasonable time, not disabled status per se |
| Sufficiency of findings / reasonable efforts | Parents: Trial court failed to consider/provide reasonable accommodations and reasonable efforts; no finding on ADA accommodations | Dept: Court found no services available and parents unwilling/unable to benefit; if no plan possible reasonable-efforts obligation relieved | Court: Trial court’s findings (no available services; chronic severe impairments; parents’ lack of cooperation) supported conclusion that no appropriate treatment plan or reasonable accommodations could be devised; reasonable-efforts requirement not triggered under § 19-3-604(1)(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (Title II prohibits disability-based exclusion from public services)
- Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) (Title II applies to state institutions)
- People in Interest of A.J.L., 243 P.3d 244 (Colo. 2010) (standard of review for termination findings)
- People in Interest of K.D., 155 P.3d 634 (Colo. App. 2007) (statutory basis for termination when parent’s mental impairment renders them unlikely to care for child)
- Colo. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs v. Ogin, 56 P.3d 1233 (Colo. App. 2002) (reasonable-accommodation analysis under ADA; no fundamental alteration required)
- People in Interest of M.M., 726 P.2d 1108 (Colo. 1986) (courts must consider less drastic alternatives before terminating parental rights)
- Lucy J. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 244 P.3d 1099 (Alaska 2010) (ADA requires accommodations in reunification services)
- Sapp v. El Paso Cnty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 181 P.3d 1179 (Colo. App. 2008) (conflict preemption framework under Supremacy Clause)