The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner–Appellee, In the Interest of S.N–V., a Child, and Concerning B.A.N., Respondent–Appellant.
300 P.3d 911
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Father B.A.N. appeals a judgment terminating his parental rights to S.N.-V. in Colorado.
- The juvenile court found father unfit due to unsuccessful reasonable efforts to rehabilitate him.
- Treatment plans included parenting, communication, anger management, visits, and a domestic violence evaluation.
- Neuropsychological testing was authorized but a full evaluation was not completed; a psychological evaluation was used instead.
- The court found no less drastic alternative to termination and considered adoption by a paternal aunt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reasonable efforts to rehabilitate were proven | Father asserts failure to provide full neuropsychological testing undermines reasonable efforts. | Department claims sufficient evidence from available evaluations supports reasonable efforts. | Yes; reasonable efforts proven despite missing full evaluation. |
| Whether estoppel/invited error bars appellate review | Father did not waive challenge to reasonable efforts; estoppel does not apply. | Department relies on invited error/forfeiture to bar review. | Estoppel did not bar review; due process allows appellate challenge. |
| Whether no less drastic alternative exists | Adoption by a relative is not necessarily the only option; consider alternatives. | Therapist and GAL testified termination was appropriate with no viable alternative. | No viable less drastic alternative; adoption by paternal aunt supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1982) (due-process standard for termination; clear and convincing evidence)
- People in Interest of S.M.A.M.A., 172 P.3d 958 (Colo. App. 2007) (reasonableness of rehabilitation and evidence standards)
- People in Interest of D.G., 140 P.3d 299 (Colo. App. 2006) (child's health needs guiding treatment plan)
- People in Interest of A.J.L., 243 P.3d 244 (Colo. 2010) (credibility and weight of evidence at termination are within appellate discretion)
- People in Interest of B.J.D., 626 P.2d 727 (Colo. App. 1981) (treatment plan appropriateness cannot be based on forfeiture)
- M.S., 129 P.3d 1086 (Colo. App. 2005) (invited error doctrine in termination context)
- In re S.P.W., 707 S.W.2d 814 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986) (dispositional vs termination evidentiary standards distinction)
- L.B., 254 P.3d 1203 (Colo. App. 2011) (burden at dispositional stage and standard of proof)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (strict due-process protections in termination cases)
- A.H., 736 P.2d 425 (Colo. App. 1987) (parental rights; treatment plan must relate to child's needs)