2016 COA 21
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Dependency and neglect case opened in 2013 concerning four children after allegations of frequent parental fighting, father’s physical abuse/threats, a child’s knife threat, and unmet medical needs for an older child; father incarcerated much of the case.
- Adjudication was initially deferred; both parents received court‑approved treatment plans requiring therapy, case contacts, home stability, releases, and other services; plans were later amended to require individual therapy approved by the Department.
- Domestic violence was an ongoing concern from the start; children were removed in August 2013 (renewed DV concerns), and adjudication converted to an order in October 2013.
- After nearly two years, the Department moved to terminate parental rights to the two younger children; after a three‑day hearing in July 2015, the trial court terminated both parents’ rights to the younger children.
- On appeal, the court affirmed termination as to father (Ma.B.) but vacated termination as to mother (K.B. and Ma.B.) and remanded for explicit findings about whether the Department provided an appropriate treatment plan that adequately addressed domestic violence and whether reasonable efforts to rehabilitate mother were made.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Department/Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a treatment plan that omitted explicit domestic violence services was appropriate | Plan was inappropriate because it never required DV counseling or told mother to separate from father; omission denied notice and monitoring | Department contended DV services were available, suggested to mother, and concerns were otherwise addressed by services | Court: Whether omission was fatal is a factual question; remanded for trial court to make findings on whether services provided adequately addressed DV concerns |
| Whether mother complied with her treatment plan | Mother argued she complied sufficiently | Department argued she complied only with technical requirements but not substantive ones (poor therapy attendance, no housing, limited visitation, sexual boundary concerns) | Court: Evidence supports finding mother failed substantive compliance; affirmed on compliance issue |
| Whether mother was unfit and unlikely to change within a reasonable time | Mother argued more time was warranted; she contested findings of unfitness | Department argued chronic problems (sexual boundary issues, lack of therapy progress) showed unfitness and low likelihood of change | Court: Evidence supports mother’s unfitness and low likelihood of change, but remand required to determine whether reasonable rehabilitation efforts were made before affirming termination |
| Whether Department made reasonable efforts and services were appropriate for father (visitation/rehab) | Father argued Department erred by suspending parenting time and relying on that to terminate rights; contested reasonableness of reunification efforts | Department pointed to anger/behavior during visits, erratic therapy attendance, and safety concerns justifying suspension and continued services requirements | Court: Affirmed that Department made reasonable efforts toward reunification and termination as to father was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1982) (due process requires reasonable efforts to reunify and thorough consideration before termination)
- People in Interest of M.M., 726 P.2d 1108 (Colo. 1986) (treatment plans aim to preserve parent-child relationship; perfection not required)
- People in Interest of SN‑V., 300 P.3d 911 (Colo. App. 2011) (trial court must determine at termination whether an appropriate plan failed and services were reasonable and unsuccessful)
- People in Interest of D.G., 140 P.3d 299 (Colo. App. 2006) (purpose of treatment plans and link to services)
- People in Interest of C.T.S., 140 P.3d 332 (Colo. App. 2006) (parental responsibility for assuring compliance with services)
- People in Interest of D.L.C., 70 P.3d 584 (Colo. App. 2003) (partial or substantial compliance may be insufficient)
- People in Interest of M.B., 70 P.3d 618 (Colo. App. 2003) (primary consideration in less‑drastic analysis is child’s physical, mental, and emotional needs)
- K.D. v. People, 139 P.3d 695 (Colo. 2006) (court may consider social history and chronic nature of conduct in assessing likelihood of change)
- People in Interest of M.T., 121 P.3d 309 (Colo. App. 2005) (definition of unfitness as inability to provide reasonable parental care)