People Ex Rel. Jcr, 259 P.3d 1279

Background

In April 2009, the twins (seven months old) were removed after a domestic violence incident involving mother and the twins’ father; two days later, six-year-old J.C.R. was removed.
ACDHS had prior notice of domestic violence and suspected drug use by the parents; they were subject to treatment plans including substance abuse and mental health evaluations, visitation, housing, and employment requirements; mother’s plan added domestic violence treatment.
In January 2010, ACDHS moved to terminate parental rights based on failure to comply with the plan or lack of plan success; the trial court terminated both parents’ rights.
Mother and father appealed, challenging the ICWA notice, compliance with treatment plans, existence of less drastic alternatives, reasonable efforts, and (for mother) request for advisory counsel.
The court held that ICWA notice was not required because there was no reason to know the children were Indian; the evidence supported termination under the treatment plan criteria; no viable less drastic alternative existed; DHS made reasonable efforts; and the request for advisory counsel was denied.
The appellate court affirmed the termination of parental rights for both mother and father.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ICWA notice requirement	Mother argues ICWA notice was required and not provided.	People/ACDHS contend there was no reason to know the children were Indian and thus no ICWA notice obligation.	No ICWA notice required; no reason to know; termination affirmed on other grounds.
Compliance with treatment plan	Mother contends insufficient evidence of grounds to terminate; could have been fit with more time.	People contend clear and convincing evidence shows failure to comply and lack of change in a reasonable time.	Grounds for termination supported by clear and convincing evidence; court did not err.
Less drastic alternatives	Mother asserts permanent placement with fathers or relatives could be tried while she improved.	People argue no viable less drastic alternative given child needs and risks to safety.	No viable less drastic alternative; termination supported.
Reasonable efforts	Mother claims DHS failed to provide diligent services and contributed to homelessness by separating parents.	People assert DHS provided information and referrals; parent bears responsibility to obtain services.	DHS met its reasonable efforts requirement; issues about housing attributable to safety concerns and noncompliance by mother.
Father’s appeal	Father contends there was not sufficient evidence he could become fit within a reasonable time.	People contend evidence showed lack of sustained housing, mental health evaluation, employment, and ongoing safety concerns.	Record supports termination; father not reasonably compliant or likely to change in a reasonable time.

Key Cases Cited

B.H. v. People in Interest of X.H., 138 P.3d 299 (Colo. 2006) (broad interpretation of 'reason to know' for ICWA notice)
People in Interest of C.T.S., 140 P.3d 332 (Colo. App. 2006) (on compliance with treatment plans and termination standards)
People in Interest of D.Y., 176 P.3d 874 (Colo. App. 2007) (reasonable time to comply with treatment plans)
People in Interest of A.J., 143 P.3d 1143 (Colo. App. 2006) (considerations of reasonable time and ongoing needs)
People in Interest of M.B., 70 P.3d 618 (Colo. App. 2003) (need for stable placement and permanency)
People in Interest of J.L.M., 143 P.3d 1125 (Colo. App. 2006) (factors for less drastic alternatives and permanent placement)
People in Interest of Z.P., 167 P.3d 211 (Colo. App. 2007) (permanent placement considerations in termination decisions)
People in Interest of D.L.C., 70 P.3d 584 (Colo. App. 2003) (evidence standard for compliance with treatment plans)