Peo in Interest of KD ( 2024 )

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div>24CA0476 Peo in Interest <span>of KD 10</span><span>-17-2024</span><span> <span> </span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 24CA0476 </div>
<div>Weld County District Court<span> No. 21JV60 </span>
</div>
<div>Honorable <span>James F. Hartmann, Judge</span> </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 <span>K.D.</span>, a Child, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>and Concerning D.D. and A.G., </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Appellants. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>JUDGMENT AFFIRMED<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division V </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE <span>FREYRE</span> </div>
<div>Grove and <span>Lum, JJ., concur</span> </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> </div>
<div>Bruce T. Barker, County Attorney, David S. Anderson, Assistant C<span>oun</span>ty </div>
<div>Attorney, Greeley, Colorado, for Appellee </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Jenna L. Mazzucca, Guardian Ad Litem<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Lindsey Parlin, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for </div>
<div>Appellant D.D. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Just Law Group, LLC, John F. Poor, Denver, Colorado for Appellant A.G. <span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </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>A.G. (mother) and D.D. (father) each appeal the juvenile </span>
</div>
<div>court’s judgment terminating their parent<span>-child legal relationship </span>
</div>
<div>with K.D. (the child). We affirm. </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>In January 2021, the Weld County Department of Human </span>
</div>
<div>Services filed a petition in dependency and neglect after it </div>
<div>investigated reports that father had abused the then-six-month-old </div>
<div>child, and that the child was dirty<span>, </span>hungry, and bruised.<span> </span>In October </div>
<div>2021, the court ordered a deferred adjudication of the child and </div>
<div>adopted treatment plans <span>fo</span>r both parents<span>. </span>It placed the child with </div>
<div>L.G. <span>(mother’s adoptive parent)</span> from January 2021 until Aug<span></span>ust </div>
<div>2022 and then moved the child to a maternal aunt <span>and uncle’s</span> </div>
<div>ho<span>me<span>. <span>The court also appointed each parent a guardian ad litem </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>(GAL)<span>. <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 3<span> <span>Father’s treatment plan required him to (1) cooperate wit<span></span>h </span></span>
</div>
<div>case professionals and maintain contact with the caseworke<span></span>r; </div>
<div>(2) complete mental health and substance abuse evaluations and </div>
<div>follow any recommendations, including urinalysis testing; </div>
<div>(3) engage in all family time; (4) find appropriate housing; and </div>
<div>(5) find stable employment or qualify for public benefit<span></span>s.<span> </span><span>Mother’s </span>
</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>treatment plan contained the same requirements and also required </div>
<div>her to participate in domestic violence therapy.<span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>Throughout the <span>case</span>, father had a pending felony burglary </span>
</div>
<div>charge and was involved with pretrial services. As well<span>, m</span>other was </div>
<div>convicted of misdemeanor child abuse and criminal mischief<span>. </span> </div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>In October 2022, the court revoked the deferred adju<span></span>dication </span>
</div>
<div>and adjudicated the child dependent and neglected with <span></span>regard to </div>
<div>both parents. The Department assert<span>ed</span> that neither parent had </div>
<div>complied with their treatment plan, that they were unsuccessful, </div>
<div>and then filed a motion to terminate their parental rights. <span></span> In March </div>
<div>2023, while the termination motion was pending, the court </div>
<div>amended t<span>he parents’ treatment plans</span> to include that each </div>
<div>complete a neuropsychological evaluation and a parent-child </div>
<div>interactional and that they comply with the requirements <span>of</span> their </div>
<div>criminal cases.<span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>The termination hearing was set for September and Octo<span></span>ber </span>
</div>
<div>2023.<span> <span>Days before the hearing, father filed a motion to cont<span></span>inue </span></span>
</div>
<div>and a notice of the applicability of the Americans with Disabilities </div>
<div>Act (ADA)<span>. </span> <span>Father’s notice requested</span> accommodations in the form </div>
<div>of<span> (1) support and resources to assist with his mild intellectual </span>
</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>disability, (2) incorporating these supports into his treatment <span></span>and </div>
<div>services, and (3) using strategies listed in the neuropsychological </div>
<div>evaluation. </div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>The court granted a second continuance and reset the </span>
</div>
<div>termination hearing for January 2024.<span> </span>After the hearing, t<span></span>he </div>
<div>juvenile court terminated both parents’ parental right<span></span>s.<span> </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Termination Criteria and Standard of Review </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>A juvenile court may terminate parental rights if it finds, by </span>
</div>
<div>clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the child has been </div>
<div>adjudicated dependent or neglected; (2) the parent has not compli<span></span>ed </div>
<div>with an appropriate, court-approved treatment plan or the pl<span></span>an has </div>
<div>not been successful; (3) the parent is unfit; and (4) the parent’s </div>
<div>conduct or condition is unlikely to change within a reas<span></span>onable time. </div>
<div>§ 19-3-604(1)(c), C.R.S. 2024. </div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>Whether a juvenile court properly terminated parental right<span></span>s </span>
</div>
<div>presents a mixed question of fact and law because it<span></span> involves </div>
<div>application of the termination statute to evidentiary facts.<span></span> <span>People in </span>
</div>
<div>Interest of A.M. v. T.M.<span>, 2021 CO 14, ¶ 15. <span>“We review the juvenile </span></span>
</div>
<div>court’s findings of evidentiary fact —<span> the raw, historical data </span>
</div>
<div>underlying the controversy <span>—</span> for clear error and accept them if<span></span> they </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>have record support.” <span>People in Interest of S.R.N.J-<span>S.</span><span>, 2020 COA 1<span></span>2, </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 10. But we review de novo the court’s legal conclusions <span></span>based on </div>
<div>those facts. <span>See id. </span>In particular, the ultimate determination of </div>
<div>whether the Department provided reasonable efforts is a legal </div>
<div>conclusion we review de novo. <span>People in Interest of A.S.L.</span>, 2022 </div>
<div>COA 146, ¶ 8. </div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>It is for the juvenile court, as the trier of fact, to determine t<span></span>he </span>
</div>
<div>sufficiency, probative effect, and weight of the evidence and to </div>
<div>assess witness credibility. <span>People in Interest of A.J.L.</span>, 243 P.3<span></span>d 244, </div>
<div>249-50 (Colo. 2010). </div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Reasonable Efforts </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 11<span> </span><span>Mother and father contend that the juvenile court erred by </span>
</div>
<div>finding that the Department provided them with reasona<span></span>ble efforts. </div>
<div>The court explicitly prioritiz<span>ed</span> the health and safety of the child and </div>
<div>found that “[t]here has been evidence presented that both <span></span>parents </div>
<div>would qualify [as individuals with a disability] under the . . . <span></span>ADA. </div>
<div>The court concluded that the Department complied wit<span></span>h the </div>
<div>requirements of the ADA and provided reasonable ef<span></span>forts for both </div>
<div>parents. These findings are supported by the record and satisfy t<span></span>he </div>
<div>relevant legal requirements. </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>A.<span> <span>Applicable Law </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 12<span> </span><span>Before the juvenile court may terminate parental rights under </span>
</div>
<div>section 19-3-604(1)(c), the state must make reasonable efforts t<span></span>o </div>
<div>rehabilitate the parent and reunite the family. §§ 19-3-100.5(1), </div>
<div>19<span>-1-103(114), 19-3-208, 19-3-604(2)(h), C.R.S. 2024. <span>“</span>Reasonabl<span></span>e </span>
</div>
<div>efforts<span>”</span><span> <span>means the “exercise of diligence and care” for a child w<span></span>ho is </span></span>
</div>
<div>in out-<span>of</span>-home placement, and the reasonable efforts standa<span></span>rd is </div>
<div>satisfied when services are provided in accordance wit<span></span>h section 19-</div>
<div>3-208. § 19-1-103(114). </div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>When a department knows or should know that a parent has <span></span>a </span>
</div>
<div>qualifying disability, it has an affirmative duty to make rea<span></span>sonable </div>
<div>accommodations for that parent when providing rehabilitative </div>
<div>services. <span>People in Interest of S.K.</span>, 2019 COA 36, ¶¶ 22, 25, 3<span></span>4; <span>see</span> </div>
<div>42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) (defining “disability” under the<span></span> ADA); <span>see also </span>
</div>
<div>42 U.S.C. § 12131(2) (defining “qualified individual<span> with a disability</span><span>” </span>
</div>
<div>under the ADA). When a parent is found to be a qualified individual </div>
<div>with a disability, the juvenile court must consider whether the </div>
<div>department made reasonable accommodations for a <span></span>parent’s </div>
<div>disability when determining whether it made reasonable </div>
<div>efforts. <span>S.K.</span>, ¶ 34. </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>¶ 14<span> </span><span>To benefit from a reasonable accommodation, a parent must </span>
</div>
<div>raise the issue of the ADA’s applicability as early in the procee<span></span>dings </div>
<div>as possible. <span>See People in Interest of S.Z.S.</span>, 2022 COA 133,<span></span> ¶ 16. </div>
<div>“The Department can accommodate, and the juvenile court can </div>
<div>address, only disabilities that are known to them.” <span>S.K.</span><span>, ¶ 22. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 15<span> </span><span>The juvenile court should consider whether the provided </span>
</div>
<div>services were appropriate to support the parent’s treatment<span></span> plan. </div>
<div>People in Interest of<span> </span><span>S.N-<span>V.</span></span><span>, 300 P.3d 911, 915 (Colo. <span></span>App. 2011). </span>
</div>
<div>The parent is ultimately responsible for using those services t<span></span>o </div>
<div>obtain the assistance needed to comply with the treatment plan. <span></span> </div>
<div>People in Interest of J.C.R.<span>, 259 P.3d 1279, 1285 (Colo. Ap<span></span>p. 2011). </span>
</div>
<div>B.<span> <span>Efforts for Father </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>A court-qualified expert in neuropsychology who conducted </span>
</div>
<div>father’s neur<span>opsychological evaluation diagnosed him as having <span>a </span></span>
</div>
<div>mild intellectual disability<span>. </span> <span>He opined that father’s </span>disability made </div>
<div>it challenging for him <span>to “compete tasks [and] to stay engaged” and </span>
</div>
<div>that he might need tasks to be repeated. He recommended that </div>
<div>father receive (1) <span>“ADA accommodations” for this case</span>, (2) individual </div>
<div>therapy, (3) <span>a </span>consultation regarding medication management <span></span>for </div>
<div>his mental health symptoms instead of using THC, (4) referrals to <span>a </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf8" data-page-no="8">
<div><div>
<div>7 </div>
<div>community-centered board and a vocational rehabilitation center, </div>
<div>and (5<span>) </span>a referral to a special advocate to help him stay organize<span></span>d. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 17<span> <span>The evaluation stated that father “may benefit from” various </span></span>
</div>
<div>strategies to compensate for his intellectual disability,<span></span> including, </div>
<div>(1) writing down important information and/or presenting it </div>
<div>visually; (2) using alarms, calendars, organizers, external </div>
<div>reminders, and mnemonic devises to keep track of important </div>
<div>information; (3) creating lists of tasks that need to be com<span></span>pleted; </div>
<div>and (4) requesting important information in writing<span>. </span> </div>
<div>¶ 18<span> </span><span>The court found, with record support, that the Department </span>
</div>
<div>offered father many of these services, even before the </div>
<div>neuropsychological evaluation recommended them.<span> </span> </div>
<div>•<span> <span>When the caseworker, who was experienced with working </span></span>
</div>
<div>with families with developmental disabilities, <span>“started </span>
</div>
<div>having concerns that [father could have an] intellectual </div>
<div>disability,<span>”</span><span> during the first year of the case, she referred </span>
</div>
<div>father for a psychological evaluation<span>. </span>This evaluation </div>
<div>could have helped the Department determine what </div>
<div>supports father needed to succeed with his treatment<span></span> </div>
<div>plan. And although the evaluator kept the referral open </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf9" data-page-no="9">
<div><div>
<div>8 </div>
<div>for “an extraordinar[ily] long time,” father <span>never </span>
</div>
<div>completed <span>it</span><span>.</span><span> </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>•<span> <span>The Department “set up” individual therapy for father </span></span>
</div>
<div>but, at the time of termination, the provider had not </div>
<div>heard from him during the previous ninety days. The </div>
<div>caseworker, whom the court qualified as an expert in </div>
<div>child permanency, opined that father was not compliant </div>
<div>with this objective of his treatment plan. </div>
<div>•<span> <span>In order to ensure that father “was understanding w<span></span>hat </span></span>
</div>
<div>the [D]epartment required of him,” father’s <span>caseworker </span>
</div>
<div>and his parent advocate with the Office of the </div>
<div>Respondent Parent’s Counsel<span> (ORPC) asked father to </span>
</div>
<div>repeat back what they had told him<span>. </span>They also wrote </div>
<div>things down for him, and the caseworker follow<span>ed</span> up </div>
<div>with father in text messages and emails. <span> </span> </div>
<div>•<span> <span>T<span>he caseworker kept father’s <span>GAL and his ORPC parent </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div>advocate “in the loop” about her attempts to meet with </div>
<div>father. Nevertheless, father missed sixteen months of </div>
<div>meetings with her over the course of the case. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfa" data-page-no="a">
<div><div>
<div>9 </div>
<div>•<span> <span>Father’s <span>therapeutic visitation supervisor observed that </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>father had “a hard time retaining some conversations and </div>
<div>scheduling and following through” so the supervisor </div>
<div>worked with him on scheduling and provided consist<span></span>ent </div>
<div>reminders. He helped father write down important </div>
<div>information regarding scheduling.<span> </span>He <span>—</span> along with </div>
<div>father’s ORPC<span> parent advocate </span><span>—</span><span> helped father use </span>
</div>
<div>alarms, calendars, and organizers. He maintained eye </div>
<div>contact when father spoke, liste<span>ne</span>d to <span>father’s</span> questions, </div>
<div>and rephrased his feedback when it seemed father was </div>
<div>not understanding. </div>
<div>¶ 19<span> </span><span>The Department also made additional accommodations after </span>
</div>
<div>the neuropsychological evaluation was completed. They included </div>
<div>those requested <span>in father’s notice of the applicability of<span></span> the ADA<span>. </span></span>
</div>
<div>•<span> <span>The Department referred father to a community-centered </span></span>
</div>
<div>board, but father was unwilling to complete the </div>
<div>application for this service. </div>
<div>•<span> <span>The caseworker gave father the website to apply for </span></span>
</div>
<div>vocational rehabilitation “and told him if he needed </div>
<div>assistance, <span>[she’d] be more than willing to help him fill </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfb" data-page-no="b">
<div><div>
<div>10 </div>
<div>out those applications or . . . connect him with people to </div>
<div>assist him.” Father indicated he was “not interested” in </div>
<div>that service.<span> </span>Father was <span>un</span>able to find stable </div>
<div>employment during this case, and changed jobs four or </div>
<div>five times. </div>
<div>•<span> <span>The caseworker referred father <span>for</span> a medication </span></span>
</div>
<div>management appointment, but father did not set <span>up </span>the </div>
<div>appointment. </div>
<div>•<span> <span>The caseworker continued to help father set up alarms </span></span>
</div>
<div>and reminders on his phone and <span>to </span>use a calendar to </div>
<div>write down appointments. </div>
<div>¶ 20<span> </span><span>The Department also provided services individualized to father </span>
</div>
<div>beyond those recommended in the neuropsychological eval<span></span>uation<span>, </span>
</div>
<div>but father did not comply<span>. </span>The caseworker scheduled her monthly </div>
<div>contact with father either <span>at</span> his home or in the community where </div>
<div>he wished. The Department provided him therapeutic <span></span>visitation, </div>
<div>offered him transportation and flexible scheduling, and ma<span></span>de the </div>
<div>visits virtual at his request. Nevertheless, father missed many visits </div>
<div>without good cause<span>. </span> And, despite his inconsistent employment, </div>
<div>father refused to apply for Supplemental Security Income benefits<span>. <span> <span></span><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="pfc" data-page-no="c">
<div><div>
<div>11 </div>
<div>¶ 21<span> </span><span>The Department referred father to domestic violence impact </span>
</div>
<div>therapy throughout the case, but he did not complete it<span></span>. The </div>
<div>Department referred father to a substance abuse evaluati<span></span>on, which </div>
<div>he completed after some delay, but he never participated in any </div>
<div>recommended treatment. And<span> </span>at the time of the termination </div>
<div>hearing, the caseworker was concerned <span>about father’s THC <span></span>use </span>
</div>
<div>because of the amount he was using. </div>
<div>¶ 22<span> </span><span>To the extent father claims that the Department did not <span>ma</span><span>k</span><span>e </span></span>
</div>
<div>reasonable efforts because it never shared the results of the </div>
<div>neuropsychological evaluation with his other providers, the reco<span></span>rd </div>
<div>belies this claim, and to the extent it does not, any error was </div>
<div>harmless<span>. <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 23<span> </span><span>First, although the evaluator testified that he intended for t<span></span>he </span>
</div>
<div>report to be shared with providers, the written evaluation list<span></span>s no </div>
<div>such requirement. Moreover, f<span>ather’s </span>therapeutic parenting time </div>
<div>supervisor testified that he was not provided with the </div>
<div>neuropsychological evaluation report, but the caseworker testified </div>
<div>that she provided the report to him<span>. </span>Nevertheless, the record shows </div>
<div>that the parenting time supervisor made the accommodations it<span></span> </div>
<div>recommended. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfd" data-page-no="d">
<div><div>
<div>12 </div>
<div>¶ 24<span> <span>Finally, we are not convinced by father’s assertion that <span>the </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>parent-child interactional was flawed because the evaluator asked </div>
<div>father, against the recommendations of the neuropsychological </div>
<div>evaluation, to multitask. The neuropsychological evaluation </div>
<div>indicated that multitasking should be avoided <span>when possible</span><span>. </span>And </div>
<div>the court-qualified parent-child interactional expert opined that </div>
<div>having the child present while interviewing the parent<span></span> was </div>
<div>“standard practice” and “how [she] was trained.” <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 25<span> </span><span>The <span>Department’s </span>efforts s<span>upport the court’s findings and </span></span>
</div>
<div>amply support the legal requirements for both accommo<span></span>dation </div>
<div>under <span>the ADA and reasonable efforts under the Children’s Code. </span> </div>
<div>C.<span> <span>Efforts for Mother </span></span>
</div>
<div>1.<span> <span>Adult GAL </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 26<span> </span><span>As an initial matter, mother contends that her need for a GAL </span>
</div>
<div>to “better engage in her case by facilitating her understan<span></span>ding of the </div>
<div>nature and significance of the proceedings,” put the Department <span></span>“on </div>
<div>notice” that mother “likely suffered from a significant ment<span></span>al health </div>
<div>or cognitive disability.” <span>We disagree and find no record support fo<span></span>r </span>
</div>
<div>her claim that the court appointed a GAL because of a signif<span></span>icant </div>
<div>mental health or cognitive disability. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfe" data-page-no="e">
<div><div>
<div>13 </div>
<div>¶ 27<span> </span><span>Under <span>the Children’s Code, a GAL </span>may be appointed for a </span>
</div>
<div>parent in dependency and neglect proceedings <span>“</span>who has been </div>
<div>determined to have a behavioral or mental health disord<span></span>er or an </div>
<div>intellectual and developmental disability by a court of competent </div>
<div>jurisdiction<span>.” <span> § 19-1-111(2)(c), C.R.S. 2024. The juvenile court has </span></span>
</div>
<div>discretion to make the appointment. <span>People in Interest of L.A.C.</span>, 97 </div>
<div>P.3d 363, 366 (Colo. App. 2004). </div>
<div>¶ 28<span> </span><span>Here, the court stated <span>that mother’s </span>substance <span>ab</span>use </span>
</div>
<div>evaluation suggested that her <span>“agitation” may prevent her f<span></span>rom </span>
</div>
<div>understanding the proceedings<span>. T</span>he court then informed the </div>
<div>parties that it would entertain a motion for a GAL for mother.<span> </span>The </div>
<div>court granted <span>mother’s motion for a GAL eleven days later</span><span>.</span><span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 29<span> <span>Because the court’s determination was based on information </span></span>
</div>
<div>in her substance abuse evaluation, we are not convinced that the </div>
<div>Department was <span>“</span>on notice<span>”</span> of an intellectual or developmental </div>
<div>disability. </div>
<div>2.<span> <span>Preservation of ADA Claim </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 30<span> </span><span>We agree with the Department and <span>GAL</span> that mother <span></span>did not </span>
</div>
<div>preserve her claim that the Department failed to comply wit<span></span>h the </div>
<div>ADA. The record shows that mother never claimed to be a pers<span></span>on </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pff" data-page-no="f">
<div><div>
<div>14 </div>
<div>with a disability<span>, </span>and never asked the Department to accommodate </div>
<div>her disability or to provide her with accommodations or spe<span></span>cialized </div>
<div>services under the ADA. Thus, we conclude that mother did not </div>
<div>preserve her ADA claim, and we need not address it. <span>See</span> <span>S.Z.S.</span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div>¶¶<span> <span>15</span>-18 (declining to consider the mother<span>’</span>s argument t<span></span>hat she was </span>
</div>
<div>denied reasonable accommodations under the ADA when her </div>
<div>counsel argued she had “psychological issues” but did n<span></span>ot mention </div>
<div>the ADA, did not assert that mother had a qualifying disa<span></span>bility, and </div>
<div>did not request accommodations for the disability); <span>see a<span></span>lso<span> </span>People </span>
</div>
<div>in Interest of K.L-<span>P.</span><span>, 148 P.3d 402, 403 (Colo. App. 200<span></span>6) </span>
</div>
<div>(“[A]rguments never presented to, considered by, or ruled u<span></span>pon by a </div>
<div>trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal.”).<span> </span>
</div>
<div>3.<span> <span>Accommodations Provided </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 31<span> </span><span>Even assuming mother had preserved her ADA claim, <span></span>we </span>
</div>
<div>conclude it would not be successful because the record shows the </div>
<div>Department provided her with the services recommended in her </div>
<div>neuropsychological evaluation.<span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 32<span> <span>Mother’s<span> evaluation included the diagnose<span>s of “borderline </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div>intellectual functioning,<span>”</span> <span>a “mild” math</span>-specific learning disorder, </div>
<div>and depression.<span> </span>She also received provisional diagnoses of </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf10" data-page-no="10">
<div><div>
<div>15 </div>
<div>paranoid personality disorder and generalized anxie<span></span>ty.<span> </span>The </div>
<div>evaluator recommended individual therapy, a domestic violence </div>
<div>evaluation, vocational training, and life skills services.<span> </span><span>Mother’s </span>
</div>
<div>evaluation, like father’s, also<span> </span>stated that she “may benefit f<span></span>rom” </div>
<div>strategies to compensate for her borderline intellectual functi<span></span>oning, </div>
<div>including, (1) writing down important information and/or </div>
<div>presenting it visually; (2) using alarms, calendars, organizers, </div>
<div>external reminders, and mnemonic devices to keep track <span></span>of </div>
<div>important information; (3) creating lists of tasks that<span></span> need to be </div>
<div>completed; and (4) requesting important information in <span></span>writing. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>Finally, the evaluation suggested the following practices for t<span></span>hose </div>
<div>working with mother: good eye contact, active listening, </div>
<div>unconditional positive regard, and warm acceptance. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 33<span> </span><span>Again, the court found, with record support, that the </span>
</div>
<div>Department provided mother some of these services even befo<span></span>re </div>
<div>they were recommended in the neuropsychological evaluation. <span></span> </div>
<div>•<span> <span>The caseworker ensured <span>that mother’s ORPC </span>parent </span></span>
</div>
<div>advocate was “present and part of the scheduling for any </div>
<div>home visits” <span>to support mother<span>. </span>Despite this, over the </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf11" data-page-no="11">
<div><div>
<div>16 </div>
<div>course of the case, mother was not in contact with the </div>
<div>caseworker for a period of fifteen months<span>. </span> </div>
<div>•<span> <span>Mother requested assistance with navigating the different </span></span>
</div>
<div>appointments in the case, and the caseworker referred </div>
<div>mother to <span>a </span>life skills program<span>. </span>The caseworker made </div>
<div>this referral three times, but mother never engaged<span>. <span> </span></span> </div>
<div>Life skills services <span>would have “accommodated the </span>
</div>
<div>recommendation[s] [in her] neuropsychological </div>
<div>[evaluation].” <span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>•<span> <span>The caseworker asked mother to repeat things back to </span></span>
</div>
<div>her to ensure mother’s understanding, wrote down next </div>
<div>steps for mother, and followed up with mother after </div>
<div>appointments. </div>
<div>•<span> <span>Mother was offered domestic violence therapy through </span></span>
</div>
<div>her criminal case, but, at the time of the termination </div>
<div>hearing, she had participated in only half of the sessions<span>. </span><span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 34<span> </span><span>After the neuropsychological evaluation, the Department <span></span>also </span>
</div>
<div>provided mother with the following services: </div>
<div>•<span> <span>Individual therapy and group therapy, but mother did </span></span>
</div>
<div>not complete th<span>em</span><span>. </span><span>Mother’s </span>substance abuse and </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf12" data-page-no="12">
<div><div>
<div>17 </div>
<div>mental health evaluator testified that she never reviewed </div>
<div>mother’s neuropsychological report<span>, but that she </span>
</div>
<div>conducted a clinical assessment update based on a </div>
<div>referral from the Department in March 2023<span>. </span> </div>
<div>•<span> <span>T<span>he</span><span> caseworker worked closely with <span>mother’s</span> ORPC </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>parent advocate and GAL<span>, in whom mother “had more </span>
</div>
<div>trust,<span>”</span><span> <span>in order to accommodate mother’s provisional </span></span>
</div>
<div>diagnosis of paranoia.<span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 35<span> </span><span>The Department also provided services to mother beyond t<span></span>hose </span>
</div>
<div>recommended in the neuropsychological evaluation, but mother did </div>
<div>not comply. </div>
<div>•<span> <span>The caseworker referred mother to Eye Movement </span></span>
</div>
<div>Desensitization and Reprocessing psychotherapy, a kind </div>
<div>of mental health therapy. Mother did not comply. </div>
<div>•<span> <span>The caseworker testified that mother did not consistently </span></span>
</div>
<div>comply with the urinalysis testing her treatment plan </div>
<div>required. In the month before the termination hearing, </div>
<div>she completed only two of the ten tests requested<span>. <span> </span></span> </div>
<div>•<span> <span>The caseworker was concerned by “the amount of THC </span></span>
</div>
<div>[mother] was using” and mother was referred <span>for a new </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf13" data-page-no="13">
<div><div>
<div>18 </div>
<div>substance abuse evaluation. Mother never completed the </div>
<div>evaluation.<span> </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>•<span> <span>The caseworker referred mother to seven visitation </span></span>
</div>
<div>agencies; mother was discharged unsuccessfully from </div>
<div>six. Mother missed visits every month, even when the </div>
<div>visitation was to take place in her own home. Mother </div>
<div>was never able to progress from supervised to </div>
<div>unsupervised visitation. </div>
<div>•<span> <span>At the time of the termination hearing, the caseworker </span></span>
</div>
<div>did not know where mother was residing or if she had </div>
<div>obtained financial assistance or employment to provide </div>
<div>for the child. </div>
<div>¶ 36<span> </span><span>Given these efforts, which satisfy the legal requirements for </span>
</div>
<div>ADA accommodation and reasonable efforts, we perceive no error in </div>
<div>the court’s determination<span> that the Department made adequate </span>
</div>
<div>efforts to rehabilitate mother<span>. </span> </div>
<div>IV.<span> </span><span>Less Drastic Alternatives </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 37<span> </span><span>Both parents assert that the juvenile court erred in </span>
</div>
<div>determining that there were no viable less drastic alternative<span></span>s to </div>
<div>termination<span>. <span>They claim that the court could have allocated </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="pf14" data-page-no="14">
<div><div>
<div>19 </div>
<div>parental responsibilities to paternal grandparents. Mother also </div>
<div>argues that an allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) to </div>
<div>paternal grandparents would not <span>“threaten the [c]hild’s best </span>
</div>
<div>interests.” <span>We perceive no error. </span>
</div>
<div>A.<span> <span>Relevant Law </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 38<span> </span><span>The juvenile court must consider and eliminate less drastic </span>
</div>
<div>alternatives before terminating parental rights.<span> </span><span>People in Interest<span></span> of </span>
</div>
<div>M.M.<span>, 726 P.2d 1108, 1122-23 (Colo. 1986).<span> </span>When making this </span>
</div>
<div>determination, the court must give primary considerati<span></span>on to the </div>
<div>child’s physical, mental, and emotional conditions and needs.<span> </span><span>See</span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>§ <span>19</span>-3-604(3); <span>People in Interest of K.B.</span>, 2016 COA 21, <span></span>¶ <span>35.</span> </div>
<div>¶ 39<span> </span><span>When deciding whether long-term or permanent placement </span>
</div>
<div>with a relative or other person is a viable less drastic alternative to </div>
<div>termination, the court may consider various factors including </div>
<div>whether a permanent placement prefers adoption rather t<span></span>han an </div>
<div>APR.<span> <span>People in Interest of Z.M.<span>, 2020 COA 3M, ¶ 31. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 40<span> </span><span>If the court considers a less drastic alternative but finds that </span>
</div>
<div>termination is in the child’s best interests,<span> it must reject the </span>
</div>
<div>proposed alternative and order termination.<span> </span><span>A.M.</span>, ¶ 32.<span> </span>Permanent </div>
<div>placement isn’t a viable<span> less drastic alternative if the child needs a </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf15" data-page-no="15">
<div><div>
<div>20 </div>
<div>stable, permanent home that <span>can</span> only <span>be</span> assured <span>by<span></span><span> adoption.<span> </span><span>S.N-</span></span></span>
</div>
<div>V.<span>, 300 P.3d <span>at</span> 920. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 41<span> </span><span>When the juvenile court considers a less drastic alternative </span>
</div>
<div>and still determines that terminati<span>ng</span> <span>parental rights is in the child’s </span>
</div>
<div>best interests, we must affirm that decision if the court’s f<span></span>indings </div>
<div>are supported by the record.<span> </span><span>People in Interest of B.H.</span>, 2021 CO 39, </div>
<div>¶ 80. </div>
<div>B.<span> <span>Analysis </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 42<span> </span><span>The court concluded that <span>“there are no less drastic </span></span>
</div>
<div>alternatives available . . . short of termination of parental <span></span>rights.<span>”</span><span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>Considering the best interests of the child, the court dete<span></span>rmined </div>
<div>that the termination was the only option because the child needed </div>
<div>to “know who his permanent caregivers will be.” <span>The record </span>
</div>
<div>supports this determination. </div>
<div>¶ 43<span> </span><span>The caseworker investigated <span>placement with mother’s </span>two </span>
</div>
<div>suggested placements for the child, but both said they would not be </div>
<div>able to provide for the child. The caseworker also investigate<span></span>d </div>
<div>paternal grandparents at father’s request. <span>However, paternal </span>
</div>
<div>grandparents did not comply with the background checks </div>
<div>necessary to become placement providers<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="pf16" data-page-no="16">
<div><div>
<div>21 </div>
<div>¶ 44<span> <span>We acknowledge the parents’ arguments that the<span>re is some </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>indication in the record that an APR might be viable.<span> </span>For example, </div>
<div>an expert testified that <span>a “well</span><span>-</span><span>structured” APR order c</span><span>an</span> serve a </div>
<div>child’s best interests<span>. <span>And the parent-child interactional expert </span></span>
</div>
<div>opined that both parents had a “positive” but “weak” bond wi<span></span>th the </div>
<div>child. However, the record shows that the current placement </div>
<div>providers were unwilling to accept an <span>APR</span>, and the casew<span></span>orker </div>
<div>opined that an APR would not be in the <span>child’s best interest</span><span>s<span>. </span></span>
</div>
<div>Ultimately, the court determines the probative value of the evidence. <span></span> </div>
<div>A.J.L.<span>, 243 P.3d at 249-50. Here, because the record supports the </span>
</div>
<div>court’s determination that the child’s best interests would not b<span></span>e </div>
<div>served by an APR, we will not disturb it on appeal. </div>
<div>V.<span> <span>Disposition </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 45<span> </span><span>The judgment is affirmed. </span>
</div>
<div>JUDGE GROVE and JUDGE LUM 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>