Peo in Intertest of IRS ( 2024 )

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div>24CA0622 Peo in Interest of IRS 10-17-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 24CA0622 </div>
<div>Adams County District Court No. 23JV30064 </div>
<div>Honorable <span>Emily Lieberman</span>, Judge </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The People of the State of Colorado, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Appellee, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the Interest of I.R.S., a Child, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>and Concerning <span>E.V.M.</span>, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Appellant. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>JUDGMENT AFFIRMED </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division III </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE TAUBMAN* </div>
<div>Dunn and Navarro, JJ., concur </div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)<span> </span>
</div>
<div>Announced October 17, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Heidi Miller, County Attorney, Meredith Karre, Assistant County Attorney, </div>
<div>Westminster<span>, Colorado, for Appellee </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Debra W. Dodd, Guardian Ad Litem </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Lindse<span>y Parlin, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel<span>, Denver, Colorado, for </span></span>
</div>
<div>Appellant </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>*Sitting by assignment of the Chief <span>Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. </span>
</div>
<div>VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2024. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf2" data-page-no="2">
<div><div>
<div>1 </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>In this dependency and neglect proceeding, <span>E.<span>V.</span></span>M. (mother) </span>
</div>
<div>appeals the juvenile court’s judgment terminating <span>her parent-child </span>
</div>
<div>legal relationship with I.<span>R.</span>S. (the child). We affirm. </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>In March 2023, the Adams County Human Services </span>
</div>
<div>Department (Department) received reports of domestic violenc<span></span>e<span>, </span>
</div>
<div>substance use<span>, </span><span>and mother’s </span>arrest and incarceration. Based on </div>
<div>those concerns, the Department initiated a dependency and negle<span></span>ct </div>
<div>proceeding. </div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>Mother admitted the allegations in the petition, and the child </span>
</div>
<div>was adjudicated dependent and neglected. The juvenile court then </div>
<div>adopted a treatment plan for mother. </div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>Later, the Department moved to terminate parental rights. <span></span> A </span>
</div>
<div>termination hearing was held, and at the conclusion of the <span></span>hearing, </div>
<div>the court granted the motion. </div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Reasonable Efforts </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 5<span> <span>Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court </span></span>
</div>
<div>erred by finding the Department made reasonable efforts to </div>
<div>rehabilitate her and reunite her with the child. We discern n<span></span>o error. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf3" data-page-no="3">
<div><div>
<div>2 </div>
<div>A.<span> <span>Standard of Review </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>Whether a department of human services satisfied its </span>
</div>
<div>obligation to make reasonable efforts is a mixed question <span></span>of fact and </div>
<div>law. <span>People in Interest of A.S.L.</span>, 2022 COA 146, ¶ 8. We <span></span>review the </div>
<div>court’s factual findings for clear error but review de nov<span></span>o its legal </div>
<div>determination based on those findings as to whether the </div>
<div>department satisfied its reasonable efforts obligation. <span></span> <span>Id.</span><span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>The credibility of the witnesses and the sufficiency, probati<span></span>ve </span>
</div>
<div>effect, and weight of the evidence, as well as the inferences and </div>
<div>conclusions to be drawn from it, are matters within the co<span></span>urt’s </div>
<div>discretion. <span>People in Interest of A.J.L.</span><span>,</span><span> </span>243 P.3d 244, 249-50 (Col<span></span>o.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>2010).<span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>B.<span> <span>Applicable Law </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>The juvenile court may terminate parental rights if it finds, by </span>
</div>
<div>clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the child was adj<span></span>udicated </div>
<div>dependent and neglected; (2) the parent has not complied wi<span></span>th an </div>
<div>appropriate, court-approved treatment plan or the plan has not </div>
<div>been successful; (3) the parent is unfit; and (4) the parent’s con<span></span>duct </div>
<div>or condition is unlikely to change in a reasonable time. § 19-3-</div>
<div>604(1)(c), C.R.S. 2024. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf4" data-page-no="4">
<div><div>
<div>3 </div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>The department of human services must make reasonable </span>
</div>
<div>efforts to rehabilitate parents and reunite families before a co<span></span>urt </div>
<div>may terminate parental rights pursuant to section 19-3-604(1)(c). </div>
<div>See<span> §§ 19-3-100.5(1), 19-3-604(2)(h), C.R.S. 2024. Reasona<span></span>ble </span>
</div>
<div>efforts means the “exercise of diligence and care” for child<span></span>ren who </div>
<div>are in out-<span>of</span>-home placement. § 19-1-103(114), C.<span></span>R.S. 2024. </div>
<div>Services provided in accordance with section 19-3-208, C.R.S. </div>
<div>2024, satisfy the reasonable efforts standard. § 19-1-103(114). </div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>Among those services required under section 19-3-208 are </span>
</div>
<div>screening, assessments, and individual case plans for the provisi<span></span>on </div>
<div>of services; home-based family and crisis counseling; information </div>
<div>and referral services to available public and private assistan<span></span>ce </div>
<div>resources; family time services; and placement services. <span></span>§ 19-3-</div>
<div>208(2)(b). </div>
<div>¶ 11<span> </span><span>In deciding whether a department has satisfied its reasona<span></span>ble </span>
</div>
<div>efforts obligation, the juvenile court should consider whether t<span></span>he </div>
<div>provided services were appropriate to support the parent’s </div>
<div>treatment plan. <span>People in Interest of S.N-<span>V.</span></span>, 300 P.3d 9<span></span>11, 915 </div>
<div>(Colo. App. 2011). But the parent is ultimately responsible fo<span></span>r </div>
<div>using those services to obtain the assistance needed to comply wit<span></span>h </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf5" data-page-no="5">
<div><div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>the treatment plan. <span>People in Interest of J.C.R.</span>, 259 P.3d 1279, </div>
<div>1285 (Colo. App. 2011). And the court may conside<span></span>r a parent’s </div>
<div>unwillingness to participate in treatment when determining wheth<span></span>er </div>
<div>a department made reasonable efforts. <span>See People in Interest<span></span> of </span>
</div>
<div>A.V.<span>, 2012 COA 210, ¶ 12. </span>
</div>
<div>C.<span> <span>Analysis </span></span>
</div>
<div>1.<span> <span>Preservation </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 12<span> </span><span>Mother and the Department assert this issue was prese<span></span>rved. </span>
</div>
<div>The guardian ad litem argues mother did not preserve t<span></span>his claim for </div>
<div>appeal. We need not decide this issue because, even if we <span></span>assume </div>
<div>mother preserved her claim, we discern no reversible<span></span> error. </div>
<div>2.<span> <span>Department’s Referrals<span> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>Mother argues the Department did not make subsequent </span>
</div>
<div>referrals after the original referrals had lapsed. </div>
<div>¶ 14<span> </span><span>The juvenile court found that reasonable efforts had been </span>
</div>
<div>made and additional referrals would have been made <span>“had [m]other </span>
</div>
<div>simply just said, <span>‘I’m ready.’</span><span> </span>And so the lack of recent referrals afte<span></span>r </div>
<div>the close [of the prior referrals] was appropriate given t<span></span>he lack of </div>
<div>communication . . . <span>.” <span> </span></span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf6" data-page-no="6">
<div><div>
<div>5 </div>
<div>¶ 15<span> <span>The record shows mother’s near complete failure to engage </span></span>
</div>
<div>with the provisions of her treatment plan and communicate with </div>
<div>the Department, not the Department’s lack of efforts,<span></span> prevented her </div>
<div>from accessing additional referrals and services. <span>See id.</span> </div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>The caseworker testified she made multiple referrals for </span>
</div>
<div>mother pursuant to her treatment plan, including three for </div>
<div>inpatient treatment, a dual diagnosis evaluation, substance us<span></span>e </div>
<div>monitoring, family time supervision, a nurturing parenting gr<span></span>oup, </div>
<div>and a life skills worker. Nevertheless<span>, </span>mother never engaged with </div>
<div>most of the services and was largely not in contact with the </div>
<div>Department<span>. <span>The caseworker additionally testified mother had only </span></span>
</div>
<div>engaged in family time with the child between one and three times </div>
<div>throughout the case, had last talked to the child on the <span></span>phone six </div>
<div>months prior to the termination hearing, and though she had </div>
<div>engaged in inpatient treatment, she left the program early twice and </div>
<div>never completed it. </div>
<div>¶ 17<span> </span><span>While most of the referrals ultimately lapse<span>d,</span> the caseworke<span></span>r </span>
</div>
<div>testified <span>—</span> and the court found credible <span>—</span> that had mother simply </div>
<div>called the caseworker and indicated she was ready to re-engage, </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf7" data-page-no="7">
<div><div>
<div>6 </div>
<div>additional referrals would have been quickly submitt<span></span>ed and mother </div>
<div>would have been able to access the services<span>. </span> </div>
<div>¶ 18<span> </span><span>Mother also <span>argues the “Department didn’t provide [</span>her] with </span>
</div>
<div>several services identified in section 19-3-<span>208(2)(b).” However, </span>she </div>
<div>fails to further describe or sufficiently argue what services were </div>
<div>allegedly not provided. <span>See People v. Simpson</span>, 93 P.3d 551, 555 </div>
<div>(Colo. App. 2003) (“We decline to consider a bald lega<span></span>l proposition </div>
<div>presented without argument or development”). <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 19<span> <span>Because the record supports the juvenile court’s factual </span></span>
</div>
<div>findings, we <span>discern no error in the court’s </span>reasonable efforts </div>
<div>determination. </div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Disposition </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 20<span> </span><span>The judgment is affirmed. </span>
</div>
<div>JUDGE DUNN and JUDGE NAVARRO concur. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div>