2022 COA 146
Colo. Ct. App.2022Background
- Child (then 14) removed after report of domestic violence, drug paraphernalia, and mother’s overdose; mother admitted allegations and child was adjudicated dependent and neglected and placed in foster care.
- Court adopted a treatment plan requiring supervised parenting time; visits were initially ordered twice weekly but were suspended after caseworker testimony that mother was erratic and possibly under the influence and the child became dysregulated.
- Department required prerequisites to reinstate visits (detox/inpatient treatment, mental-health and substance-abuse evaluations, and clean urinalyses) and referred mother to services and visitation providers; mother did not consistently complete or follow up on required steps.
- Child consistently expressed a desire not to visit mother; foster parents intervened and a stipulation allocating parental responsibilities (APR) to them was filed; mother withdrew consent and the court conducted a contested APR hearing.
- Juvenile court granted APR to the foster parents and provided some parenting time for mother; mother appealed, arguing the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify and the court failed to make sufficient findings.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Department/People’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for whether reasonable efforts were made | Court should review factual finding for clear error (or at least not treat it as pure law). | Reasonable efforts requirements apply in limited contexts; past precedent ambiguous on standard. | Whether reasonable efforts were made is a mixed question: factual findings reviewed for clear error; legal conclusion reviewed de novo. |
| Sufficiency of court findings about reasonable efforts | Absence of explicit written/oral findings requires reversal. | Lack of express findings does not automatically require reversal if record shows reasonable efforts. | Mere absence of explicit findings alone is not reversible error; record evidence can demonstrate reasonable efforts. |
| Whether Department satisfied reasonable-efforts obligation to provide visitation and reunify | Department failed: visits suspended and never reinstated, so it did not make reasonable efforts. | Department made reasonable efforts: referrals, services, evaluations, urinalyses, and visitation providers were offered; mother did not engage or follow up. | Department satisfied reasonable-efforts obligation based on record showing referrals and available services and mother’s failure to engage. |
| Whether suspending visits pending proof of sobriety was improper | Suspension without timely reinstatement violated reasonable-efforts duty. | Suspension was appropriate for child’s protection given mother’s erratic/possibly intoxicated behavior; reinstatement required completion of conditions. | Suspension was justified by child-safety concerns; reinstatement required conditions and mother failed to complete necessary steps. |
Key Cases Cited
- People in Interest of My.K.M. v. V.K.L., 2022 CO 35 (Colo. 2022) (ICWA “active efforts” is a mixed question of fact and law; legal determination reviewed de novo)
- People in Interest of L.B., 254 P.3d 1203 (Colo. App. 2011) (absence of explicit findings does not require reversal where record shows department made necessary efforts)
- People in Interest of B.C., 122 P.3d 1067 (Colo. App. 2005) (child’s health and safety are paramount in visitation and service decisions)
- People in Interest of E.C., 259 P.3d 1272 (Colo. App. 2010) (department’s reasonable-efforts obligation applies even when APR is allocated to a nonparent)