Peo in Interest of JNRA ( 2024 )

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div>24CA0634 Peo in Interest of JNRA 10-17-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 24CA0634 </div>
<div>City and County of Denver Juvenile Court No. 22JV30597 </div>
<div>Honorable <span>Ronald M. Mullins</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 J.N.R.A., a Child, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>and Concerning A.J.A., </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Appellant. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>JUDGMENT AFFIRMED </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division II </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE SCHOCK </div>
<div>Fox and Johnson, 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>Kerry Tipper<span>, City Attorney, Amy J. Packer, Assistant City Attorney, Denver, </span>
</div>
<div>Colorado, for Appellee </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Josi McCauley, Guardian Ad Litem </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Morgan Law Office, <span>Kris</span>tofr P. Morgan, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for </div>
<div>Appellant </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.<span>J.<span>A. (mother) appeals the judgment terminating her parent-</span></span></span>
</div>
<div>child legal relationship with J.N.R.A. (the child). We affirm. </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>In October <span>202</span>2, the Denver County Department of Human </span>
</div>
<div>Services (the Department) filed a petition in dependency and neglect </div>
<div>regarding the then-two-year-old child, based on concerns about </div>
<div>mother’s recent drug use.<span> <span>The petition noted that mother had <span></span>a </span></span>
</div>
<div>history of using substances, including methamphetamine <span></span>and </div>
<div>alcohol<span>. <span>It also explained that the child had been removed from </span></span>
</div>
<div>mother’s care in a <span>prior dependency and neglect case but had been </span>
</div>
<div>returned after mother successfully completed her treatment<span></span> plan. </div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>The juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent or </span>
</div>
<div>neglected and adopted a treatment plan that required mother to </div>
<div>engage in substance abuse treatment and supervised family time.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>About six months later, the child was placed with kin in Arkansas. </div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>Approximately a year after the petition was filed, the </span>
</div>
<div>Department moved to terminate mother’s parental rights<span>.<span> <span>The </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>juvenile court held a hearing in November 2023 and denied the </div>
<div>motion, finding that the Department had not made reasonable </div>
<div>efforts to provide substance abuse services to mother in the </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>previous six months because there was no open referral fo<span></span>r such </div>
<div>services during that time<span>. </span>But the court explained that based on its </div>
<div>concerns about mother’s <span>active substance use, <span>it</span> would not set the </span>
</div>
<div>case out for a full six months, and it told mother that if she did not </div>
<div>“hit the ground running” with treatment, it “fully expect[ed]” <span>there </span>
</div>
<div>would be another motion to terminate her parental right<span></span>s. </div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>The Department moved for reconsideration of the juvenile </span>
</div>
<div>court’s order denying the motion to terminate<span>. <span>The court denied the </span></span>
</div>
<div>motion, but it clarified that it had not <span>“</span>made <span>a </span><span>general</span> finding that<span></span> </div>
<div>the Department had <span>never</span> made reasonable efforts to help [m]othe<span></span>r </div>
<div>overcome her substance use disorder.”<span> <span>Rather, the court</span></span>’s finding </div>
<div>about the Department’s lack of reasonable efforts was “<span>relate[d] </span>
</div>
<div>specifically to <span>the Department’s</span> failure to make an additional </div>
<div>referral” <span>for a substance abuse evaluation and treatment.<span> </span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>About three months after the first termination hearing, the </span>
</div>
<div>Department again moved <span>to terminate mother’s parental right<span></span>s<span>. <span>In </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>March 2024, the juvenile court held a second termination hearing<span>. </span>
</div>
<div>Mother did not appear because, according to her counsel, she had </div>
<div>recently entered <span>“some kind of treatment,” which she “hop[ed] [w<span></span>as] </span>
</div>
<div>around substance use.”<span> <span>At the conclusion of the hearing, the court </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="pf4" data-page-no="4">
<div><div>
<div>3 </div>
<div>granted the <span>motion, terminating mother’s parental rights</span><span>. </span>As </div>
<div>relevant to this appeal, t<span>he court found that mother’s ongoing <span></span>drug </span>
</div>
<div>use rendered her unfit and that it was “not very likely <span></span>that [mother] </div>
<div>will conquer her drug dependency over any reasonable time p<span></span>eriod.”<span> </span>
</div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Fit Within a Reasonable Time </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>Mother contends that the juvenile court erred by finding she </span>
</div>
<div>could not become fit within a reasonable time because the second </div>
<div>termination motion was filed only three months after the first one </div>
<div>was denied, and she had recently begun treatment<span>. </span>We disagree. </div>
<div>A.<span> <span>Standard of Review </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 8<span> <span>A juvenile court’s termination of<span> parental rights presents a </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>mixed question of law and fact because it involves application <span></span>of the </div>
<div>termination statute to evidentiary facts. <span>People in Interest of </span>
</div>
<div>S.R.N.J-<span>S.</span><span>, 2020 COA 12, ¶ 10. We review the juvenile <span>court’s </span></span>
</div>
<div>factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de nov<span></span>o. <span>Id.</span> </div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>The credibility of the witnesses, the probative effect and weight </span>
</div>
<div>of the evidence, and the inferences and conclusions to be drawn </div>
<div>from the evidence are within the province of the juvenile court.<span></span> </div>
<div>People in Interest of A.J.L.<span>, 243 P.3d 244, 249-50 (Colo. 20<span></span>10). We </span>
</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>do not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment<span></span> for that of </div>
<div>the juvenile court. <span>People in Interest of K.L.W.</span>, 2021 COA 56, ¶ <span></span>62. </div>
<div>B.<span> <span>Applicable Law </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>The juvenile court may terminate a parent-child legal </span>
</div>
<div>relationship if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, <span></span>that (1) the </div>
<div>child was adjudicated dependent and neglected; (2) the parent has </div>
<div>not reasonably complied with an appropriate court-approved </div>
<div>treatment plan, or the plan has not been successful; (3) t<span></span>he parent </div>
<div>is unfit; and (4) the parent’s conduct or condition is unlik<span></span>ely to </div>
<div>change within a reasonable time. § 19-3-604(1)(c), C.R.S. <span></span>2024<span>. </span> </div>
<div>¶ 11<span> </span><span>A parent is unfit if they are unable or unwilling to give a child </span>
</div>
<div>reasonable parental care. <span>People in Interest of S.Z.S.</span>, 2022 COA </div>
<div>133, ¶ 23. “Reasonable parental care requires, at a minimu<span></span>m, that </div>
<div>the parent provide nurturing and protection adequate to <span></span>meet the </div>
<div>child’s physical, emotional, and mental health needs.” <span>S.R.N.J-<span>S.</span></span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div>¶ <span>9. A parent’s </span>failure to comply with a treatment plan may be </div>
<div>considered in determining unfitness. <span>People in Interest of D.P.</span>, 18<span></span>1 </div>
<div>P.3d 403, 408 (Colo. App. 2008). </div>
<div>¶ 12<span> <span>In determining whether a parent’s conduct or condition is </span></span>
</div>
<div>likely to change such that they may become fit within a reas<span></span>onable </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>time, the juvenile court may consider whether any change has </div>
<div>occurred during the dependency and neglect proceeding, as well as </div>
<div>the chronic or long-<span>term nature of the parent’s conduct or </span>
</div>
<div>condition. <span>K.D. v. People</span>, 139 P.3d 695, 700 (Colo. 2<span></span>006)<span>. </span>Parents </div>
<div>must have a reasonable amount of time to work on a treatment </div>
<div>plan before the juvenile court terminates their parental rights. </div>
<div>People in Interest of D.Y.<span>, 176 P.3d 874, 876 (Colo. App. 2<span></span>007). </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>What constitutes a reasonable time is fact-specific and varies </span>
</div>
<div>from case to case. <span>Id. </span>But a reasonable time is not an indefinite </div>
<div>time, and it must take into account the child’s physical, ment<span></span>al, </div>
<div>and emotional conditions and needs. <span>S.Z.S.</span>, ¶ 24. When a parent </div>
<div>has made little or no progress on a treatment plan, the court nee<span></span>d </div>
<div>not give the parent additional time to comply. <span>Id.</span><span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 14<span> </span><span>Moreover, when a child is under six years old, as in this case, </span>
</div>
<div>the juvenile court must also consider the expedited permanency </div>
<div>planning provisions, which require that such children be placed <span></span>in </div>
<div>a permanent home as expeditiously as possible. §§ 19-1-102(1.6), </div>
<div>19<span>-1-123, 19-3-702(5)(c), C.R.S. 2024<span>; </span><span>see also</span> <span>S.Z.S.</span>, ¶ 25. </span>
</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>C.<span> <span>Analysis </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 15<span> <span>Mother had fourteen months between the juvenile cou<span></span>rt’s </span></span>
</div>
<div>adoption of her treatment plan in January 2023 and t<span></span>he second </div>
<div>termination hearing in March 2024 to take the steps neces<span></span>sary to </div>
<div>demonstrate her fitness as a parent.<span> </span>But the substance use </div>
<div>concerns that prompted the Department’s involvement <span></span>persisted. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>In particular, the juvenile court found that despite the </span>
</div>
<div>Department’s reasonable efforts, mother<span> had made </span>“very meager </div>
<div>efforts” to comply with her treatment plan <span>due to her drug </span>
</div>
<div>dependency and was unlikely to resume compliance with the plan.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>The court found that <span>mother had a “long</span>-term issue with abusing </div>
<div>drugs” and that “additional time [would] likely not change t<span></span>he </div>
<div>conduct and conditions” that rendered her unfit.<span> <span>More specifically, </span></span>
</div>
<div>the court found that mother was unlikely to “conquer her <span></span>drug </div>
<div>dependency”<span> <span>in any reasonable time period. And it noted the chil<span></span>d’s </span></span>
</div>
<div>need for permanency, given the child’s “very young age.”<span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 17<span> <span>The record supports the juvenile court’s findings. <span>The </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>caseworker testified that mother continued to use substances and </div>
<div>had not completed substance abuse treatment.<span> </span>Mother had </div>
<div>completed only two of the sixty required urinalysis tests, both <span></span>of </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>which were positive.<span> </span>The caseworker testified that she made a </div>
<div>referral for substance abuse evaluation in October 202<span></span>2, which </div>
<div>remained open until May 2023, but mother never completed t<span></span>hat </div>
<div>evaluation, missing all but one of fifteen scheduled <span></span>appointments </div>
<div>and leaving after fifteen minutes the one time she did attend.<span> </span>Then, </div>
<div>at the first termination hearing, mother testified that she had u<span></span>sed </div>
<div>fentanyl that morning.<span> </span>And although she told the juvenile court she </div>
<div>was planning to go to detox that day, and the caseworker offered to </div>
<div>give her a ride, she did not go.<span> </span>The caseworker nevertheless made </div>
<div>another referral for a substance abuse evaluation that day. </div>
<div>¶ 18<span> </span><span>Mother points out that, after the second referral, she </span>
</div>
<div>eventually completed the evaluation and entered treatment.<span> </span>But we </div>
<div>are not persuaded that her belated efforts to do so <span>—</span> more than a </div>
<div>month after the second termination motion was filed <span>—</span> required t<span></span>he </div>
<div>juvenile court to give her more time<span>. </span>At the first termination </div>
<div>hearing, the court told mother that she needed to <span>“hit the ground </span>
</div>
<div>running” by going to detox that day and responding to anyon<span></span>e who </div>
<div>reached out to set up an evaluation or treatment<span>. </span>Notwithstanding </div>
<div>that admonition, mother did not respond to the substance a<span></span>buse </div>
<div>evaluator, complete the evaluation, or enter treatment<span></span> until the </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>week before the second termination hearing <span>—</span> more than four </div>
<div>months after the first one.<span> </span>The court was not required to att<span></span>ribute </div>
<div>more weight to this very <span>recent evidence of mother’s progr<span></span>ess<span> than </span></span>
</div>
<div>to mother’s protracted lack of engagement over the course of t<span></span>he </div>
<div>case<span>. <span>See A.J.L.<span>, 243 P.3d <span>at</span> 252 (holding that juvenile court may, </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>but is not required to, give more weight to more recent<span></span> evidence). </div>
<div>¶ 19<span> </span><span>Mother also argues that she should have been given more time </span>
</div>
<div>to comply with her treatment plan because <span>th</span>e Department did not </div>
<div>provide her with <span>“appropriate substance abuse treatment for a </span>
</div>
<div>significant portion of the case.<span>”</span><span> </span>And it is true that the juvenile </div>
<div>court denied the Department’s first<span> termination motion because the </span>
</div>
<div>Department had not made a second substance abuse evaluation </div>
<div>referral <span>in</span> the six months before the first termination hearing. </div>
<div>¶ 20<span> </span><span>But the initial referral was open for the first <span>seven</span> months of </span>
</div>
<div>the case, and mother did not complete the evaluation during t<span></span>hat </div>
<div>time.<span> <span>Then, the second<span> </span>referral was open for another four months </span></span>
</div>
<div>before mother finally respond<span>ed</span> to the evaluator and completed the </div>
<div>evaluation.<span> <span>Thus, even excluding the time period in which there </span></span>
</div>
<div>was no open referral, mother still had eleven months to com<span></span>plete </div>
<div>the evaluation and failed to do so. Moreover, after denying the </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>Department’s first termination motion, the juvenile court cla<span></span>rified </div>
<div>that, other than the lack of a second substance abuse refe<span></span>rral, the </div>
<div>Department had made <span>“numerous efforts” to provide services to </span>
</div>
<div>mother <span>and had often “gone above and beyond</span> <span>in doing so.”</span> The </div>
<div>absence of an open referral for six months between May 2<span></span>023 and </div>
<div>November 2023 did not require the district court to give <span></span>mother </div>
<div>more time to complete treatment in March 2024 when she co<span></span>uld </div>
<div>have begun that treatment four (or seventeen) months earlier. </div>
<div>¶ 21<span> </span><span>The record also <span>supports the juvenile court’s finding</span> that </span>
</div>
<div>mother’s <span>substance abuse was long-term<span>. </span><span>See K.D.</span>, 139 P.3d at </span>
</div>
<div>700. The caseworker testified that this was the second case </div>
<div>involving mother and the child.<span> </span>And she further testified that the </div>
<div>concerns in the first case, which was opened in 2020, were <span>“very </span>
</div>
<div>similar<span>”</span><span> to the concerns in this case </span><span>—</span><span> <span>mother’s sobriety and <span></span>overall </span></span>
</div>
<div>stability.<span> <span>Although mother successfully completed her treatment </span></span>
</div>
<div>plan in the first case, the Department began receiving new referral<span></span>s </div>
<div>concerning mother<span>’s substance use</span> only six months after the first </div>
<div>case closed and the child was returned to her.<span> </span>By the time of the </div>
<div>second termination hearing <span>—</span> four years after the first case </div>
<div>opened <span>—</span> mother was still struggling with substance abuse issues. </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>¶ 22<span> </span><span>Finally<span>, <span>by the time of termination, the child had been out of </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>mother’s<span> home for approximately seventeen months.<span> </span>At the f<span></span>irst </span>
</div>
<div>termination hearing, the caseworker testified that <span>over the child’s </span>
</div>
<div>lifetime<span>, <span>the child had spent more time <span>out of mother’s care </span>than in </span></span>
</div>
<div>her care.<span> </span>She also opined that termination and adoption were in </div>
<div>the child’s best interests <span>because they would provide stability.<span> </span>And </span>
</div>
<div>although the caseworker did not expressly <span>testify that the child’s </span>
</div>
<div>age was a factor in her opinion regarding permanency, t<span></span>he juvenile </div>
<div>court’s consideration of the child’s “very young age” was <span>consistent </span>
</div>
<div>with the statutory requirement of expedited permanency for </div>
<div>children under the age of six. <span>See</span> <span>S.Z.S.</span>, ¶ 25; § 19-102(1.6). </div>
<div>¶ 23<span> </span><span>Thus<span>, <span>because the record supports the <span>juvenile court’s </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div>determination that mother could not become fit within a reas<span></span>onable </div>
<div>time, we will not disturb that finding. <span>See S.R.N.J-<span>S.</span></span><span>, ¶</span> 10. </div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Disposition </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 24<span> </span><span>The judgment is affirmed. </span>
</div>
<div>JUDGE FOX and JUDGE JOHNSON 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>