The People of the State of Colorado v. A.B. and J.S. In the Interest of Minor Child: B.C.B.; and B.C.B.
2025 CO 28
Colo.2025Background
- B.C.B. was born in a car while his parents were living there; at birth, both B.C.B. and his mother tested positive for methamphetamine.
- Due to the positive test, El Paso County Department of Human Services conducted a risk assessment and took temporary custody of B.C.B.
- The Department filed a dependency or neglect petition arguing B.C.B. was dependent or neglected under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-102(1)(g).
- At trial, mother admitted methamphetamine use during pregnancy, had minimal prenatal care, and was in ongoing substance abuse treatment.
- Pediatricians testified to potential but not certain developmental risks from prenatal methamphetamine exposure; the caseworker and therapist described risks relating to mother’s ability to care for the child.
- The trial court found B.C.B. dependent or neglected; the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, requiring proof that the exposure caused actual effect, not just potential.
Issues
| Issue | People's Argument | Parent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a positive drug test at birth satisfies § 19-3-102(1)(g)'s "affected by exposure" requirement | Positive test proves the child was affected by substance exposure | Positive test shows only exposure, not that the child was affected | Positive test is an "effect" and satisfies the first prong |
| Whether further proof is required that the child's health or welfare is threatened by substance use | Substance use risks immediate/future health and/or impairs parental care | No concrete evidence of current harm or parental inability to care; risks were speculative | Risk that mother can't properly care for B.C.B. due to ongoing substance abuse suffices |
| Whether agency regulations requiring physical, developmental, or behavioral impact must be followed | Non-binding if inconsistent with statute's plain language | Regulations are binding per legislative delegation and expertise | No deference given to regulation; statutory language governs |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support dependency/neglect adjudication | Evidence of exposure and parental unfitness meets preponderance standard | No evidence of actual effect or threat to child's welfare; evidence was speculative | Sufficient evidence supported jury’s finding under the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- People in Interest of D.L.R., 638 P.2d 39 (Colo. 1981) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in dependency and neglect cases)
- UMB Bank, N.A. v. Landmark Towers Ass'n, 408 P.3d 836 (Colo. 2017) (courts must respect and not rewrite legislative language)
- Dep't of Revenue v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 441 P.3d 1012 (Colo. 2019) (interpretations of statutes by agencies are not automatically binding if contrary to plain language)