Peo in Interest of AHG ( 2024 )

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div>24CA0425 Peo in Interest <span>of AHG 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. 24CA0425 </div>
<div>City and County of Denver Juvenile Court No. 22JV30567 </div>
<div>Honorable <span>Elizabeth Beckers Strobel</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 A.H.G., a Child, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>and Concerning S.M.H., </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Appellant. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>JUDGMENT AFFIRMED </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division II </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE FOX </div>
<div>Johnson and Schock, 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 C. 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>Patrick R. Henson, <span>Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel</span>, Chelsea A. Carr, </div>
<div>Office of Respondent <span>Parents’</span> Counsel, Colorado, for Appellant </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 proceeding, S.<span>M.</span>H. (mother) </span>
</div>
<div>appeals the judgment terminating her parent-child legal </div>
<div>relationship with A.H.G. (the child). We affirm. </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>In September 2022, the Denver County Department of Human </span>
</div>
<div>Services filed a petition in dependency and neglect regarding the </div>
<div>then-six-year-old child.<span> </span>The Department alleged concerns about </div>
<div>mother’s substance use and the child’s exposure to guns and </div>
<div>violence. The juvenile court granted temporary legal custody t<span></span>o the </div>
<div>Department, and the child was placed with her paternal </div>
<div>grandmother. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>After mother entered an admission to the petition, the juvenile </span>
</div>
<div>court adjudicated the child dependent or neglected.<span> </span>The court </div>
<div>adopted a treatment plan requiring mother to engage <span></span>in substance </div>
<div>abuse treatment, cooperate with the Department, attend supervised </div>
<div>family time, and develop stability<span>. </span> </div>
<div>¶ 4<span> <span>The Department later filed a motion to terminate mother’s </span></span>
</div>
<div>parental rights. After two continuances, the juvenile court held a </div>
<div>contested termination hearing and granted the <span>Department’s </span>
</div>
<div>motion<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="pf3" data-page-no="3">
<div><div>
<div>2 </div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Discussion </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 that she could not become fit within a reasona<span></span>ble </div>
<div>amount of time. We discern no error. </div>
<div>A.<span> <span>Standard of Review </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>Whether a juvenile court properly terminated parental right<span></span>s </span>
</div>
<div>presents a mixed question of law and fact because it involve<span></span>s </div>
<div>application of the termination statute to evidentiary facts.<span></span> <span>People in </span>
</div>
<div>Interest of S.R.N.J-<span>S.</span><span>, 2020 COA 12, ¶ 10. We review a <span>court’s </span></span>
</div>
<div>factual findings for clear error, but we review de nov<span></span>o the court’s </div>
<div>legal conclusions based on those facts. <span>Id</span><span>. </span> </div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>The credibility of the witnesses, as well as the sufficiency, </span>
</div>
<div>probative effect, and weight of the evidence, and the inf<span></span>erences and </div>
<div>conclusions to be drawn from <span>it</span>, are within a juvenile court<span>’s </span>
</div>
<div>province<span>. <span>People in Interest of S.Z.S.<span>, 2022 COA 133, ¶ <span>10</span></span></span></span>.<span> <span>We </span></span>
</div>
<div>cannot reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment f<span></span>or that of </div>
<div>the court. <span>Id.</span> at ¶ <span>29.</span> </div>
<div>B.<span> <span>Applicable Law </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 was adj<span></span>udicated </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>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMp/NNN/MMpNNNQEn%2By4V5NS7t3cgwZaq/IMZ2%2Bstdh190Dk2ioQU%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPZRA67A6E&amp;Expires=1729526604&amp;Signature=Qk0OqYHnqRHA0ii08Otmz8rX9us%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjECcaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIETB8VrzZEZe%2FRwk7Qpuny0Py9dpsmIvyPAu1%2FUoQCudAiBECzZ4y1HZGo2vfvkjA9NTruLO1pXwMIGzXLpDn7WrOCq7BQiQ%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAAaDDkyNjA0MTIwMzkzNSIMhVGeQV%2FNL9H%2FZc7zKo8FdegBqjp9%2F1C1czsRqBiK2A5e510HLVeUgj%2F0sJaYfGphuGY8DL0rMndHUSyQK83X5uKabS2ZXbiqIwQZT4E5dbeJrNH0glmFrIBN96p3yuPGb%2F0CkWTorEND8j%2FwrZNMNXL0CirFHQfmm%2FY7UAn%2BK9N8F65rnD%2BFcmMSp%2FqVePz8wWbCvdieDyhKh%2BE5jnqDjER2XgOIJhPhkwOHiopuYx7FzJZtBLMaUolmdZsQnnydVk3wOEmwDjtJuVqqSzQNcGmR8iCQjua6gYmBXQ8LsrvYZ8cugh7SQHRzOunEs52zJL2iXYY1Zw6lcH8kBVgA0rqBSqHgAKhAfsPp8f0%2BrhWdsyov%2Fwy%2FO3DOZWySorNWFfpjL23ZWcvNeScbiwHnLYJECoVkZs%2Ff0ayn4bs8GFFiLElRv21CtsqbFtWj7K%2FVUEl0SixIkBvtD9Ur7If0uPNGlxAzpsQJfNvVN4I3rbpke1XoaQHJ0l5T31M7xdbuSKE0YgmuD0eSaMPAIFR854rTU992OobeyAF13OKJHqFQeKJ9tEvbzP0syA%2BqP9n234XXpATTQ7MpN7vzHu5X9hr%2FeypDVxWjC94uetK6Wp%2BvIQ6eUIi67jdRBHflOnpyEDf7Y%2B6iqv%2Fqt8giOKsRr%2FNrBEww49BIHjMjl5jWWSHPkxyLnmE5EnFRbE3zsx5UIkMVj2H1ekYlFhsW9IoTsEzeFt05McSUu5KlOMPP7zCmYkFXXo2hbfcFIcnL1lq1DQhSAaP%2BIK1xKGYIJMM9JVvfYntiZ%2BSTbV0vSQxWCokNnEivJldYkXXU1t%2Fnzsc7GV7%2B1Y6IpWWwcadPKNrVpnDsjNLQNNvfYNObHyj%2FDAWsMITvtFGbHzQtZ6p1wzDE19m4BjqyAb4talURsHlU42TADDlWYBSY5VHaoHPb1CPH9UjDfAi0go4ky46TQUILdY5Go3CEokDoNoxyjBRqDQ0%2BptGv819EBzebeVCpKa%2Frj2YTClBY5LsWH8Q2TIsETrvZxHx4mDQkeci3gYCSBRyhSfmJW3huZnP3UuM2aVythgHs7S0gYPmeYJY51EgrDzdIZ4hchRnesC%2FClC3%2FRU1jptvNDaLlWiqxifPEKoYVqm7PuhJPRKs%3D"><div>
<div>3 </div>
<div>dependent <span>or</span> neglected; (2) the parent has not complied with 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>¶ 9<span> </span><span>An unfit parent is one whose conduct or condition rende<span></span>rs the </span>
</div>
<div>parent unable or unwilling to give a child reasonable pa<span></span>rental care. </div>
<div>S.Z.S.<span>, ¶ 23. “Reasonable parental care requires, at a minimu<span></span>m, </span>
</div>
<div>that the parent provide nurturing and protection adequate t<span></span>o meet </div>
<div>the child’s physical, emotional, and mental health needs.” </div>
<div>S.R.N.J-<span>S.</span><span>, ¶ 9. A parent’s noncompliance with a treatment<span></span> plan </span>
</div>
<div>generally may also be considered in determining unfitness. <span></span> <span>People </span>
</div>
<div>in Interest of D.P.<span>, 181 P.3d 403, 408 (Colo. App. 2008). </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>A parent must have a reasonable amount of time to work on a </span>
</div>
<div>treatment plan before a juvenile court terminates her parental </div>
<div>rights. <span>People in Interest of D.Y.</span>, 176 P.3d 874, 876 (Colo. <span></span>App. </div>
<div>2007).<span> <span>But a reasonable time is not an indefinite time, and it must </span></span>
</div>
<div>be determined by considering the physical, mental, and emotion<span></span>al </div>
<div>conditions and needs of the child. <span>S.Z.S.</span>, ¶ 24. Periods as short as </div>
<div>five to nine months have been held to be sufficient to comply <span></span>with a </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>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMy/rff/MMyrffW1yllUzGUY0NfHGITpvOaAO8hQCxuihJ3DNPWYg%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPZRA67A6E&amp;Expires=1729526604&amp;Signature=vU6y8dXFvEbiIf0%2FS7qAx8OfgiM%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjECcaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIETB8VrzZEZe%2FRwk7Qpuny0Py9dpsmIvyPAu1%2FUoQCudAiBECzZ4y1HZGo2vfvkjA9NTruLO1pXwMIGzXLpDn7WrOCq7BQiQ%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAAaDDkyNjA0MTIwMzkzNSIMhVGeQV%2FNL9H%2FZc7zKo8FdegBqjp9%2F1C1czsRqBiK2A5e510HLVeUgj%2F0sJaYfGphuGY8DL0rMndHUSyQK83X5uKabS2ZXbiqIwQZT4E5dbeJrNH0glmFrIBN96p3yuPGb%2F0CkWTorEND8j%2FwrZNMNXL0CirFHQfmm%2FY7UAn%2BK9N8F65rnD%2BFcmMSp%2FqVePz8wWbCvdieDyhKh%2BE5jnqDjER2XgOIJhPhkwOHiopuYx7FzJZtBLMaUolmdZsQnnydVk3wOEmwDjtJuVqqSzQNcGmR8iCQjua6gYmBXQ8LsrvYZ8cugh7SQHRzOunEs52zJL2iXYY1Zw6lcH8kBVgA0rqBSqHgAKhAfsPp8f0%2BrhWdsyov%2Fwy%2FO3DOZWySorNWFfpjL23ZWcvNeScbiwHnLYJECoVkZs%2Ff0ayn4bs8GFFiLElRv21CtsqbFtWj7K%2FVUEl0SixIkBvtD9Ur7If0uPNGlxAzpsQJfNvVN4I3rbpke1XoaQHJ0l5T31M7xdbuSKE0YgmuD0eSaMPAIFR854rTU992OobeyAF13OKJHqFQeKJ9tEvbzP0syA%2BqP9n234XXpATTQ7MpN7vzHu5X9hr%2FeypDVxWjC94uetK6Wp%2BvIQ6eUIi67jdRBHflOnpyEDf7Y%2B6iqv%2Fqt8giOKsRr%2FNrBEww49BIHjMjl5jWWSHPkxyLnmE5EnFRbE3zsx5UIkMVj2H1ekYlFhsW9IoTsEzeFt05McSUu5KlOMPP7zCmYkFXXo2hbfcFIcnL1lq1DQhSAaP%2BIK1xKGYIJMM9JVvfYntiZ%2BSTbV0vSQxWCokNnEivJldYkXXU1t%2Fnzsc7GV7%2B1Y6IpWWwcadPKNrVpnDsjNLQNNvfYNObHyj%2FDAWsMITvtFGbHzQtZ6p1wzDE19m4BjqyAb4talURsHlU42TADDlWYBSY5VHaoHPb1CPH9UjDfAi0go4ky46TQUILdY5Go3CEokDoNoxyjBRqDQ0%2BptGv819EBzebeVCpKa%2Frj2YTClBY5LsWH8Q2TIsETrvZxHx4mDQkeci3gYCSBRyhSfmJW3huZnP3UuM2aVythgHs7S0gYPmeYJY51EgrDzdIZ4hchRnesC%2FClC3%2FRU1jptvNDaLlWiqxifPEKoYVqm7PuhJPRKs%3D"><div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>treatment plan. <span> </span><span>People in Interest of A.J.</span>, 143 P.3d 1143, 1<span></span>152 </div>
<div>(Colo. App. 2006). <span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 11<span> </span><span>The determination of a reasonable period is necessarily fact </span>
</div>
<div>specific, and thus, what constitutes a reasonable time to comply </div>
<div>with a treatment plan may vary from case to case<span>. </span><span>D.Y.</span>, 176 P.3d at </div>
<div>876. <span>In determining whether a parent’s conduct or conditi<span></span>on is </span>
</div>
<div>likely to change and whether the parent can become fit<span></span> in a </div>
<div>reasonable time, the juvenile court may consider the chronic or </div>
<div>long-<span>term nature of the parent’s conduct or condition <span>and whether </span></span>
</div>
<div>any change occurred during the dependency and neglect </div>
<div>proceeding<span>. <span> <span>K.D. v. People</span>, 139 P.3d 695, 700 (Colo. 2006). </span></span>
</div>
<div>C.<span> <span>Analysis </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 12<span> <span>The juvenile court found that mother had “been using drugs </span></span>
</div>
<div>for years” and that she continued to use substances during he<span></span>r </div>
<div>pregnancy with the child’s younger sibling, whose umbilical cor<span></span>d </div>
<div>tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl in November </div>
<div>2023. The court <span>found that mother “did basically nothing” t<span></span>o </span>
</div>
<div>address her substance abuse in the year leading up to t<span></span>ermination. </div>
<div>The court also found that <span>mother’s “attempt at sobriety” </span>had </div>
<div>occurred “just six days”<span> before the hearing, and until that<span></span> time, </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>mother had demonstrated the same “lack of sobriety <span></span>that caused </div>
<div>[the] <span>case to be brought to the attention of the [c]ourt.<span></span>” <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>The juvenile court further found that the child had been </span>
</div>
<div>adjudicated “well over a year ago” and that “the bottom line” was </div>
<div>that the child had “been waiting for <span>17 </span>months for stability.” <span>The </span>
</div>
<div>court concluded that <span>the “conduct </span>or condition of [mother] </div>
<div>render[ed] her unlikely to change within a reasonable pe<span></span>riod of time </div>
<div>for this seven-year-<span>old child”</span> <span>and that termination was in the <span></span>child’s </span>
</div>
<div>best interests because it would provide the stability she needed.<span> </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 14<span> </span><span>The record supports these findings. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 15<span> <span>First, the record supports the juvenile court’s findings about </span></span>
</div>
<div>the long-<span>term nature of mother’s substance use. </span>The substance </div>
<div>abuse evaluator testified that although mother denied using </div>
<div>methamphetamine and fentanyl at the time of her 2022 evaluation, </div>
<div>she admitted that she had used these drugs before 2019. Mother </div>
<div>testified that she was taking oxycodone pills as far back as 201<span></span>7 </div>
<div>and that when her mother passed away, her addiction “got wo<span></span>rse.” </div>
<div>The caseworker testified that mother tested positive for </div>
<div>methamphetamine and fentanyl in September or October 2022<span>. </span>
</div>
<div>The c<span>aseworker’s</span> report, which was admitted as evidence du<span></span>ring the </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>hearing, stated that mother gave birth to a baby whose umbilical </div>
<div>cord was positive for the same drugs in November 2023. <span></span>And, while </div>
<div>mother did not provide a second urinalysis test until January 2<span></span>024<span>, </span>
</div>
<div>that test was positive. </div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>Second<span>, the record supports the juvenile court’s findings about </span></span>
</div>
<div>mother’s<span> lack of progress during the proceedings. Over a year </span>
</div>
<div>passed between the <span>adoption of mother’s treatment plan an<span></span>d the </span>
</div>
<div>termination hearing<span>. </span> The caseworker testified that although mother </div>
<div>completed two substance abuse evaluations, she had not engaged </div>
<div>in any of the recommended treatment by the first day of t<span></span>he </div>
<div>termination hearing.<span> </span>The caseworker also stated that throughout </div>
<div>the case, mother had not used the resources the Department </div>
<div>provided or taken steps to attain stable employment and ho<span></span>using. </div>
<div>The caseworker opined that <span>on the date of the hearing, mother’s </span>
</div>
<div>parenting was not better than it was at the beginning of the <span></span>case </div>
<div>and that mother remained unable to provide <span>“</span>the stability and </div>
<div>parental care that [the child] need[ed].” <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 17<span> </span><span>It is true, as mother points out, that on the second day of the </span>
</div>
<div>hearing, which occurred about a week after the first<span>, </span>she testified </div>
<div>that she had entered inpatient treatment and had <span>“</span>six days 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>sobriety<span>.”<span> <span>She also stated that her new treatment providers would </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>help her clear her warrants and find a sober living fa<span></span>cility after she </div>
<div>completed her treatment. But the juvenile court was not requir<span></span>ed </div>
<div>to attribute more weight to the more recent evidence <span>of mother’s</span> </div>
<div>progress. <span>See People in Interest of A.J.L.</span>, 243 P.3d 244, 252 (C<span></span>olo. </div>
<div>2010) (attributing more weight to more recent evidence may be </div>
<div>appropriate in some instances, but doing so is within a juvenile </div>
<div>court’s <span>discretion<span>).<span> </span></span></span>Thus, we reject mother’s argument that the </div>
<div>court erred by denying her more time based on her recent </div>
<div>engagement in treatment and her plan for future stability<span>, </span>
</div>
<div>particularly given the evidence that mother did not engage in </div>
<div>treatment or demonstrate stability for most of the case. </div>
<div>¶ 18<span> </span><span>Mother also argues that the court should have allowed her </span>
</div>
<div>more time because she had a strong bond with the child.<span> </span>Indeed, </div>
<div>the visitation provider testified that family time typically went<span></span> well </div>
<div>and that the child was bonded to mother. But mother does not </div>
<div>explain how the evidence of her bond with the child negates the </div>
<div>evidence showing that mother was not sober throughout the </div>
<div>proceedings and did not attempt to address her substance abuse </div>
<div>issues until after the termination hearing had already started.<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="pf9" data-page-no="9">
<div><div>
<div>8 </div>
<div>¶ 19<span> </span><span>Finally, mother argues that the court should have given her </span>
</div>
<div>more time because the child was already in a permanent placement </div>
<div>and thus, would not have been negatively impacted by delaying </div>
<div>termination.<span> <span>But</span><span> at the time of termination, the child had been <span></span>out </span></span>
</div>
<div>of the home for seventeen months, and the caseworker testif<span></span>ied that </div>
<div>paternal grandmother preferred adoption because she believe<span></span>d it </div>
<div>would provide stability for the child. The caseworker opined that </div>
<div>permanency via <span>termination and adoption was in the <span></span>child’<span>s best </span></span>
</div>
<div>interests.<span> </span><span> Thus, although there may <span>be</span> evidence indicating t<span></span>hat the </span>
</div>
<div>child would have remain<span>ed</span> in the same placement even if the court </div>
<div>had given mother more time, there is also evidence supporting the </div>
<div>court’s <span>finding that allowing more time was not </span>in the child’s best </div>
<div>interests because it would have delay<span>ed</span> the stability the child </div>
<div>needed.<span> <span>As noted, w<span>e </span>cannot reweigh the evidence or substitute our </span></span>
</div>
<div>judgment for that of the juvenile court<span>. </span><span>S.Z.S.</span><span>, ¶</span> <span>29<span>. </span></span> </div>
<div>¶ 20<span> </span><span>In sum, the juvenile court found that mother could not </span>
</div>
<div>become fit within a reasonable time <span>by</span> considering the evidence </div>
<div>showing <span>mother’s</span> partial compliance and weighing it against the </div>
<div>contrary evidence and the <span>child’s</span> needs.<span> </span>Because the record </div>
<div>supports the court’s <span>finding<span>, w<span>e decline to disturb the judgment. </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="pfa" data-page-no="a">
<div><div>
<div>9 </div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Disposition </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 21<span> </span><span>The judgment is affirmed. </span>
</div>
<div>JUDGE JOHNSON and JUDGE SCHOCK 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>