Peo in Interest of CAP ( 2024 )

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div>24CA0521 Peo in Interest of CAP 10-17-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 24CA0521 </div>
<div>Costilla County District Court No. 21JV2 </div>
<div>Honorable Crista Newmyer-Olsen, 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 C.A.P. and G.U.P., Children, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>and Concerning: </div>
<div> </div>
<div>S.A.<span>W.,</span><span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Appellant. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>JUDGMENT AFFIRMED<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division VI </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE <span>WELLING</span> </div>
<div>Brown and Moultrie, JJ., concur </div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) </div>
<div>Announced October 17, 2024. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Rebecca N. Rian<span>, Assistant County Attorney, Alamosa, Colorado, for Appellee </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Jenna L. Mazzucca, Guardian Ad Litem for C.A.P. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Debra Dodd, Guardian Ad Litem for G.U.P. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Lindsey Parlin, Office f<span>or Respondent Parents’ Counsel, </span>Denver, Colorado, for </div>
<div>Appellant </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>In this dependency and neglect action, S.A.W. (mother) </span>
</div>
<div>appeals the judgment terminating her parent-child legal </div>
<div>relationships with C.A.P. and G.U.P. (the children). We <span></span>affirm. </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>The Costilla County Department of Social Services (the </span>
</div>
<div>Department) filed a petition in dependency and neglect, <span></span>alleging </div>
<div>that the children had been exposed to domestic violence and we<span></span>re </div>
<div>being negatively affected by <span>mother’s mental health and substan<span></span>ce </span>
</div>
<div>use. Initially, the children were placed with father on a safety <span></span>plan, </div>
<div>but after a month the juvenile court granted temporary custo<span></span>dy to </div>
<div>the Department and entered a protective order requiring supervi<span></span>sed </div>
<div>family time. The court later <span>determined that the children’s health </span>
</div>
<div>and safety required additional restrictions on <span>mother’s family tim</span><span>e<span>. </span></span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>The juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent and </span>
</div>
<div>neglected and adopted a treatment plan for mother. About a year </div>
<div>after the petition was filed, the guardian ad litem moved to </div>
<div>terminate mother’s parental rights. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>The juvenile court denied the first motion to terminate </span>
</div>
<div>parental rights after finding the Department did<span>n’</span><span>t </span>make reasonable </div>
<div>efforts to reunite the family<span>. </span>The court found that, although mother </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>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPZOU6NTGL&amp;Expires=1729526601&amp;Signature=c1222TjB0sLlrA67Ch9kHCgtYlI%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjECcaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQDmdOwlcM5AVr9%2B8fL9h%2Fe8Vw%2BXKvZtt%2F%2FKMDtZPCgTlQIhAMyOyk%2FmhqHq4k34Px%2F%2BDdk7k1PWTy31GF1ysh95jFqkKrsFCJD%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEQABoMOTI2MDQxMjAzOTM1IgwU%2B%2FSWIMbBmHQBX6gqjwUdrcZWeVuTjLbWkd6Nh8uxOMqElkODag7w8U0PMRvtdAPmmQwB7xolZwl9Bt9699GxtSF8RSavwgM5eyNNuNyNxJlAu8aowQmwyM2H1m23xEoBjeJR33umdGA7BLa9rLpyrEY%2F0X5izoMw7Ymzi4lkEihFmL6jUb7Uwy0vYf2avFlRzhxGW%2Be3pEU5i43BaIzhDb6O50ruyO8AbRaMOamEsUudEWGbzgGUn2HQA5eGKIswnnhdmKoItUjLZk4pZrc%2BmsPRj6rBrJgEojUgP1lgCau6aixWodZDcMaM6N3%2FKmaLeGqXdv2HVeiHErK36R893rhZJA7EbhtOkcv7dbyFsywslbsjJYLoHNjprlQPk8hgIstoPplrLKu1IEAISm9mogiBnnMmbj2Xd26PMh5H60fg6LbguHm6HK439G8Lg9NWSejxG9kECXCCRFzFbQfI3SHxzuV%2B%2FXD8kmPET9MyK57KihqKVC3dV2IPeT6N90C6GEp2O2cxL2Gu7COMnh9jOYzBzEMEPS6VA7raCDA2M0u2slUSo6YoZH0RXisWWzBNFZ%2FDawYJmtqNF97COTlhYOQz49nlhg0UFOddYp7kl3oUCE2jTtEWF0zhXTop%2F6V4p9n%2F6JILAR%2FqlGcQf%2FHIrqckEuNZe4ytni%2BGCiVGAyCBO1U70I81Gh1Na9pj5mwIet%2F612qbyWV286CJ0BVJYB33IOYmWn7qQB%2FMDOanS%2Blt718nVkUOAqZif0pj7wN%2B0ZcnJm57iCLyW%2F2%2F1q0AGH9O3m7ffwCgHuVS4LD4ibcUCK4o3h7s2PhBDvdfKO9SAA6cWN4MdgYyaUSCirwebocarXZXlfqc%2BgfeCTpTFi5VuogZVrcgSYSfMHXZMIPP2bgGOrAB7%2Bx4sffX3FTbfmzrAev5JdcfCaR46h7h3i6f7si4rIRc5k8wWgz%2BG9cb2IgnkKKafkZmqTDMDKzY6dmTTlbqCC80b4fIeqOl92yx9bikOQPCEzVSBCtOk%2F1FM0XNk5hnR8m5ABHVgEHKmBm9jRRh9sFa0f0Gttg3fWSicYUPEpYz3VAK%2BpzW%2BFcVWqtYQv1U2ryZhDUjeNwmq1QP1dgmJJUeGXK9ScbX63eGFuLzvps%3D"><div>
<div>2 </div>
<div>had been “largely noncompliant”<span> with her treatment plan, the co<span></span>urt </span>
</div>
<div>was unclear “whether her lack of compliance <span>[was] based upon her </span>
</div>
<div>own refusals or whether it [was] related to simply not having the </div>
<div>appropriate services in place given her extreme needs.” <span>In the order </span>
</div>
<div>denying termination, the court gave the Department specific </div>
<div>instructions to cure the reasonable efforts concerns. Among other </div>
<div>things, the <span>De</span>partment had to create an amended treatment plan </div>
<div>that was individualized for mother and which identif<span>ie</span>d specific </div>
<div>services to support mother in addressing the treatment plan </div>
<div>objectives<span>. <span>The Department did so, and an amended treatment plan </span></span>
</div>
<div>was adopted by the court twenty-two months after the petition was </div>
<div>filed. </div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>The juvenile court ordered that mother should have six </span>
</div>
<div>months to demonstrate substantial compliance with <span></span>the amended </div>
<div>treatment plan. Almost a year after the amended treatment <span></span>plan </div>
<div>had been <span>adopted, the Department moved to terminate moth<span></span>er’s </span>
</div>
<div>parental rights. Three years after the petition was filed, the court </div>
<div>granted the motion after a contested hearing.</div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> Father relinquished his parental rights and isn<span>’</span><span>t <span>a </span></span>party <span>to</span> this </div>
<div>appeal. </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf3" data-dest-detail='[3,"XYZ",69,104,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:485.172222px;bottom:164.053889px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</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>II.<span> <span>Reasonable Efforts </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>On appeal, mother contends that the juvenile court erred by </span>
</div>
<div>finding the Department made reasonable efforts. We are<span>n’t</span> </div>
<div>persuaded<span>. <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>A.<span> <span>Standard of Review and Applicable Law </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>The reasonable efforts standard requires the Department <span></span>to </span>
</div>
<div>exercise diligence to reunify the family, generally by providing </div>
<div>services identified in the parent’s treatment plan so <span>that the parent </span>
</div>
<div>can become fit. <span>See People in Interest of S.N-<span>V.</span></span>, 300 P.3d 911, <span></span>915 </div>
<div>(Colo. App. 2011); <span>§§</span> <span>19</span>-1-103(114), 19-3-100.5, 19-3-604(<span></span>2)(h), </div>
<div>C.R.S. 2024<span>. </span> Services provided in accordance with section 19-3-</div>
<div>208, C.R.S. 2024, satisfy the reasonable efforts standard. <span>Peop<span></span>le in </span>
</div>
<div>Interest of S.Z.S.<span>, 2022 COA 133, ¶ 13; § <span>19</span><span>-1-103(114)</span><span>. </span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>Whether a department satisfied its obligation to make </span>
</div>
<div>reasonable efforts is a mixed question of fact and law.<span></span> <span>People in </span>
</div>
<div>Interest of A.S.L., <span>2022 COA 146, ¶ 8. Therefore, we review the </span>
</div>
<div>juvenile court<span>’</span>s factual findings on the issue for clear error b<span></span>ut </div>
<div>review de novo the court<span>’</span>s legal determination, based on those </div>
<div>findings, as to whether a department satisfied its reasonable eff<span></span>orts </div>
<div>obligation.<span> <span>Id. </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="pf5" data-page-no="5">
<div><div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>B.<span> <span>Analysis </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>Mother contends that the juvenile court erred <span>by</span> finding that </span>
</div>
<div>she was unfit because the Department didn<span>’</span>t make reasonable </div>
<div>efforts. In support of her claim, mother asserts that the </div>
<div>Department <span>didn’t</span> provide her with <span>“several </span>services identified in </div>
<div>section 19-3-208(2)(b).<span>”</span><span> </span>But we are<span>n’t </span>aware of, and mother doesn<span>’</span><span>t </span>
</div>
<div>provide, support for her assertion that a department must provide </div>
<div>every service included in the Children’s Code<span>. </span><span>See S.N-<span>V.</span><span>, 300 P.3d </span></span>
</div>
<div>at 915 (when evaluating whether a department made reasonable </div>
<div>efforts, the court should consider whether the provi<span></span>ded services </div>
<div>were appropriate to support the parent’s treatment plan<span>); <span>see a<span></span>lso </span></span>
</div>
<div>People in Interest of My.K.M. v. V.K.L.<span>, 2022 CO 35, ¶ 33 (a </span>
</div>
<div>department may “<span>prioritize certain services or resources to a<span></span>ddress </span>
</div>
<div>a family’s most pressing needs in a way that will assist t<span></span>he family’s </div>
<div>overall completion of the treatment plan”<span>).</span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>In any event, the juvenile court found that the Department </span>
</div>
<div>made reasonable efforts after the first termination motion was </div>
<div>denied<span>. The court found that the Department had “done sim<span></span>ply all </span>
</div>
<div>[it] <span>can do to give [mother] a reasonable and fair opport<span></span>unity” to </span>
</div>
<div>maintain her parental relationships with the children. <span></span> The court </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>found that <span>there were “repeated referrals” for appropriate <span></span>services </span>
</div>
<div>but<span>, importantly, mother stopped participating in <span></span>the case after the </span>
</div>
<div>amended treatment plan was adopted. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 11<span> <span>The juvenile court’s factual findings are supported by t<span></span>he </span></span>
</div>
<div>record. After the court denied the first termination <span></span>motion, the </div>
<div>Department provided updates detailing what efforts <span>it</span> was making </div>
<div>to support the new treatment plan objectives. At the second </div>
<div>termination hearing, the caseworker summarized these efforts, </div>
<div>testifying that the Department made referrals for individual ther<span></span>apy, </div>
<div>therapeutic family time, substance abuse treatment, domestic </div>
<div>violence treatment<span>, </span>and anger management. The caseworker </div>
<div>testified that she gave mother housing applications and made call<span></span>s </div>
<div>with mother to get her on the waiting list for housing, but mothe<span></span>r </div>
<div>“never followed through with trying to get housing.”<span> <span>The </span></span>
</div>
<div>Department also made referrals for substance monitoring and </div>
<div>offered mother transportation to complete urinalysis testing<span>. </span>
</div>
<div>Furthermore, both the caseworker and <span>the caseworker’s </span>supervisor </div>
<div>testified that they encouraged mother to participate in <span></span>services and </div>
<div>regularly reached out to her through phone calls, texts, <span></span>and emails. </div>
<div>Despite these efforts, mother discontinued her individual t<span></span>herapy, </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>stopped providing urinalysis samples ten months before the </div>
<div>termination hearing, and didn<span>’</span>t participate in the other servi<span></span>ces </div>
<div>offered by the Department as part of the amended treatment plan<span>. </span> </div>
<div>¶ 12<span> </span><span>Mother does<span>n’t </span>identify which additional services she believes </span>
</div>
<div>the Department should have provided to her as part of her amende<span></span>d </div>
<div>treatment plan. Nor does she provide record support <span></span>for her </div>
<div>contention that <span>the caseworker admitted to making “no efforts” <span></span>to </span>
</div>
<div>resume mother’s family time<span>. </span><span>See People in Interest of D.B-<span>J.</span><span>, 89 </span></span>
</div>
<div>P.3d 530, 531 (Colo. App. 2004) (stating that<span></span> where an appellant </div>
<div>does<span>n’t <span>identify supporting facts, make specific arguments, or set </span></span>
</div>
<div>forth specific authorities to support a contention, the contention is </div>
<div>not properly before the appellate court and will not be ad<span></span>dressed). </div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>Mother claims that, if the Department had done more, she </span>
</div>
<div>“would have been making progress surrounding her treatment<span></span> plan </div>
<div>objectives and would have been able to have contact wit<span></span>h her </div>
<div>children.” <span>But the juvenile court found that mother </span>didn’t </div>
<div>participate in therapeutically supervised family time wit<span></span>h the older </div>
<div>child, even though it was available to her<span>. </span>True, family time with </div>
<div>the younger child was suspended at the time of the termination </div>
<div>hearing. As part of the termination judgment, the court found that<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="pf8" data-page-no="8">
<div><div>
<div>7 </div>
<div>mother did<span>n’t</span> <span>engage in her treatment and, as a result<span></span>, “the court </span>
</div>
<div>simply did not ever get to a point where [it] thought that<span></span> [family </div>
<div>time with mother] was safe and appropriate for [the younger chil<span></span>d]<span>”</span> </div>
<div>so that the protective order could be amended.<span> </span>Here, the court </div>
<div>appropriately considered mother’s lack of participation in <span></span>services </div>
<div>and court proceedings when it determined the Department <span></span>made </div>
<div>reasonable efforts. <span>See People in Interest of A.V.</span>, 2012 COA 210, </div>
<div>¶ <span>12</span><span>; </span><span>see also People in Interest of J.C.R.</span>, 259 P.3d 1279, 1285 </div>
<div>(Colo. App. 2011) (a parent is ultimately responsible for using <span></span>the </div>
<div>provided services to obtain the assistance needed to <span></span>comply with </div>
<div>the treatment plan)<span>. </span>As discussed above, the record supports the </div>
<div>juvenile court’s findings that the lack of family time was due t<span></span>o </div>
<div>mother’s nonengagement, and not a lack of reasonable eff<span></span>orts by </div>
<div>the Department.<span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 14<span> </span><span>To the extent that mother contends that the Department <span></span>failed </span>
</div>
<div>to provide appropriate services to the children to support <span></span>their </div>
<div>availability for family time, we are<span>n’t </span><span>persuaded</span><span>. </span>At the time of </div>
<div>termination, G.U.P. was nine years old and C.A.P. was almost six </div>
<div>years old. The caseworker testified that both children <span></span>had high </div>
<div>needs. The caseworker testified that G.U.P. was place<span></span>d in a </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>therapeutic foster home, where he was receiving “intensive care.<span></span>” </div>
<div>G.U.P.’s placement provider testified that <span>he</span><span> attended an affective </span>
</div>
<div>needs program at school and attended both individual and family </div>
<div>therapy to address his emotional and mental health needs. <span></span>C.A<span>.P.’s </span>
</div>
<div>placement provider testified that he was seen by a team of </div>
<div>specialists to address his high medical needs. C.A.P. received extra </div>
<div>support at school as well as play therapy, occupational t<span></span>herapy, </div>
<div>and speech language therapy. Mother does<span>n’t</span> suggest what </div>
<div>additional services could or should have been provided to supp<span></span>ort </div>
<div>her children’s needs. <span> And, in any event, the record demonstrate<span></span>s </span>
</div>
<div>that it was mother’s nonengagement, and not the children’s high </div>
<div>needs, that prevented her from participating in family time wit<span></span>h the </div>
<div>children. </div>
<div>¶ 15<span> </span><span>Considering <span>both the court’s</span> findings <span>and mother’s </span></span>
</div>
<div>unsupported assertions, we agree with the juvenile <span>court’s </span>
</div>
<div>conclusions that the Department made reasonable efforts to </div>
<div>rehabilitate mother and reunify the family. Thus, we discern no </div>
<div>error. </div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Disposition </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>The judgment is affirmed. </span>
</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>JUDGE BROWN and JUDGE MOLUTRIE 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>