Background
In May 2022, Colorado’s Department of Human Services filed a dependency and neglect petition regarding a newborn child based on concerns about the parents’ substance use, criminal histories, and living environment. After the parents admitted through their actions or omissions that the child lacked proper parental care, the juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent and neglected and adopted treatment plans for both parents. The father was incarcerated during most of the case and remained in the Department of Corrections through the termination hearing. The mother was also incarcerated for a period but later released on probation.
More than two years after filing the petition, the Department moved to terminate parental rights. The termination hearing spanned nine days over five months. During that time, the mother gave birth to a sibling who remained in her care, but the child tested positive for methamphetamine in July 2024, resulting in the child’s removal from the mother’s home. The juvenile court found both parents unfit and terminated their parental rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights. Under Colorado law, parental rights may be terminated if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the child was adjudicated dependent or neglected; (2) the parent failed to comply with an appropriate, court-approved treatment plan or the plan was unsuccessful; (3) the parent is unfit; and (4) the parent’s conduct or condition is unlikely to change in a reasonable time. All four prongs were satisfied here.
Regarding the father’s treatment plan, the court rejected his argument that incarceration rendered the plan inappropriate. The father’s eight-objective plan (parenting time, substance use, stability, parenting education, communication, mental health, criminal activity, and domestic violence) was designed to address the safety concerns that prompted state intervention. Although the father could not complete some action steps while incarcerated—such as maintaining employment or attending in-person parenting visits—he never disputed that all eight objectives were necessary for him to become a fit parent. The court found no error in approving an appropriate plan even though some components became difficult due to incarceration.
Regarding reasonable efforts, the Department made adequate attempts to provide services. Although the father lacked parenting time for approximately one year, this resulted from facility limitations and nonresponsive communication, not Department neglect. The caseworker pursued multiple avenues to establish visitation, including enlisting a parenting time supervision facility that eventually arranged video visits beginning December 2024. For the mother, a statutory exception applied: under Colorado law, once parental rights to a sibling are involuntarily terminated, the Department is no longer required to make reunification efforts. The mother’s parental rights to four older children were terminated in January 2023, eliminating the duty to make reasonable reunification efforts in this case. However, the court noted the interplay between this exception and other duties remained undeveloped on appeal.
The court found both parents unfit based on treatment plan noncompliance. The mother minimized her ongoing substance use, continued smoking marijuana “a couple times a week,” and refused to accept responsibility for Department involvement. She failed to complete a required domestic violence victim assessment despite a documented incident where she told witnesses she feared the father “was going to kill her.” The father’s incarceration prevented full plan completion, but he made limited progress while confined. The mother’s continued substance use posed an ongoing safety risk, particularly after her child’s positive hair follicle test and her documented pattern of associating with substance users. The court rejected the mother’s argument that the methamphetamine exposure might have resulted from prescribed medication, finding no evidence the child took any qualifying medications during the test period.
Finally, regarding less drastic alternatives, the court considered but rejected guardianship and allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) agreements. The caseworker contacted eleven potential placements, including relatives, and discussed APR possibilities with several. However, the court found termination necessary because the child’s demonstrated trauma symptoms and separation anxiety required a stable, permanent adoptive placement rather than any arrangement preserving parental involvement. The child’s nearly three-year out-of-home placement created an urgent need for permanency that less drastic alternatives could not adequately provide.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s incarceration does not prohibit an appropriate treatment plan but makes crafting a meaningful plan more difficult; a parent must still address the plan’s core objectives to demonstrate fitness, though timing and method may adjust to reflect incarceration circumstances.
- When a parent’s rights to a sibling are terminated, Colorado law § 19-1-115(7)(b) eliminates the Department’s obligation to make reasonable reunification efforts—a statutory carve-out that applied to the mother despite some ongoing Department involvement.
- Partial or substantial compliance with a treatment plan does not establish fitness if core components remain unaddressed; the mother’s housing, employment, and parenting education progress was insufficient when weighed against her continued substance use and refusal to engage domestic violence treatment.
- Parental refusal to acknowledge how past behavior impacted children may itself prevent provision of reasonable parental care and supports an unfitness finding even apart from specific noncompliance.
- A less drastic alternative must affirmatively serve the child’s best interests, not merely adequately meet basic needs; permanency and stability concerns can outweigh less drastic options even if those options would provide adequate care.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies how Colorado courts balance competing principles in termination cases: the strong policy favoring family preservation against the child’s urgent need for permanency and stability. For incarcerated parents, the ruling confirms that a treatment plan remains appropriate even if incarceration makes certain objectives temporarily impossible—what matters is whether the plan addresses the core safety concerns and whether the parent demonstrates commitment to addressing those concerns within available constraints. The decision shows courts have discretion to approve plans and assess compliance even when external barriers complicate execution.
The case also illustrates the practical weight of statutory exceptions to reasonable efforts obligations. Although the Department’s general duty is to rehabilitate parents and reunify families, once parental rights to a sibling terminate involuntarily, that duty disappears—a rule that significantly shifts the legal landscape for subsequent children. Finally, the decision reinforces that even parents who demonstrate partial progress (stable housing, employment, some treatment participation) may remain unfit if they minimize or refuse to address critical safety concerns like substance abuse or domestic violence. Courts must weigh the totality of compliance efforts and the parent’s willingness to acknowledge harmful patterns, not cherry-pick completed components.