Peo in Interest AMB-Y ( 2024 )

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div>24CA0316 Peo in Interest of AMB-<span>Y 10</span>-10-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 24CA0316 </div>
<div>Boulder County District Court No. 22JV30011 </div>
<div>Honorable <span>J. Keith Collins, 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 A.M.B-<span>Y., </span>a Child, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>and Concerning C.B.C., </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Appellant, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>and </div>
<div> </div>
<div>K.Y.,<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Appellee. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>JUDGMENT AFFIRMED<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division VI </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE MOULTRIE </div>
<div>Welling<span> and Brown, JJ., concur </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)<span> </span>
</div>
<div>Announced October 10, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Benjamin Pearlman, C<span>ounty</span> Attorney, Debra W. Dodd, Special Assistant </div>
<div>County Attorney, Boulder, Colorado, for Appellee The People of the State of </div>
<div>Colorado </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Robert Tweedell, Guardian Ad Litem<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Patrick R. Henson, <span>Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Justin Twardowski, </span>
</div>
<div>Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver<span>, Colorado, for Appellant </span>
</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> </div>
<div>John F. Poor, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for </div>
<div>Appellee K.Y. </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="pf3" data-page-no="3">
<div><div>
<div>1 </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>In this dependency and neglect action, C.B.C. (mother) </span>
</div>
<div>appeals the judgment allocating parental responsibilities f<span></span>or </div>
<div>A.M.B-Y. (the child) to K.Y. (father). We affirm the judgment. </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>When the child was six months old, the Boulder County </span>
</div>
<div>Department of Housing and Human Services (the Department) </div>
<div>began working with mother and the child’s older sibling.<span> <span>At that </span></span>
</div>
<div>time, the sibling had been out of mother’s care as part of <span></span>a </div>
<div>dependency and neglect action in another county for more than </div>
<div>three years. </div>
<div>¶ 3<span> <span>The child was added to the sibling’s case as a non<span>-court </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>involved “participating child” in 2020.<span> <span>In 2022, the juvenile cou<span></span>rt </span></span>
</div>
<div>overseeing the sibling’s case ordered the Department t<span></span>o investigate </div>
<div>pursuant to section 19-3-501(1), C.R.S. 2024, which authorizes a </div>
<div>court <span>to</span> <span>order a department to “make a preliminary investigation t<span></span>o </span>
</div>
<div>determine whether the interests of the child or of the community </div>
<div>require that further action be taken.”<span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>The Department then filed a petition in dependency and </span>
</div>
<div>neglect concerning the then-three-year-old child.<span> </span>The petition </div>
<div>alleged concerns that mother was not following court <span></span>orders entered </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>2 </div>
<div>in the older sibling’s cases to ensure the child’s safety.<span> <span>The petition </span></span>
</div>
<div>also alleged that mother was unable to provide a safe environm<span></span>ent </div>
<div>for the child. </div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>For about a month, the child resided with mother unde<span></span>r </span>
</div>
<div>protective supervision from the Department.<span> </span>Then the child was </div>
<div>moved into father’s care, where she resided througho<span></span>ut the rest of </div>
<div>the dependency and neglect case. </div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>The juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent and </span>
</div>
<div>neglected and adopted a treatment plan for mother.<span> </span>Father later </div>
<div>moved for primary custody and sole decision-making under an </div>
<div>allocation of parental responsibilities (APR).<span> </span>Mother objected and </div>
<div>moved for primary custody and sole decision-making in her own </div>
<div>proposed APR. </div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>In February 2024, nearly two years after the petition was <span></span>filed </span>
</div>
<div>and following a three-day contested hearing, the juvenile court </div>
<div>entered an APR allocating sole custody and decision-making to </div>
<div>father. </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>3 </div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Reasonable Efforts </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>Mother first argues that the juvenile court erred by entering </span>
</div>
<div>the APR judgment because the Department failed to make </div>
<div>reasonable efforts to reunify her with the child.<span> </span>We disagree. </div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>A department must make reasonable efforts to rehabilit<span></span>ate </span>
</div>
<div>parents and reunite families when a child is placed <span>—</span> or is at </div>
<div>imminent risk of placement <span>—</span> out of the home. §§ <span>19</span>-1-103(114), </div>
<div>19<span>-3-100.5, 19-3-208(1), 19-3-604(2)(h), C.R.S. 2024<span></span>. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>But the child was not in an out-<span>of</span>-home placement when t<span></span>he </span>
</div>
<div>APR judgment entered <span>—</span> she had been with father for all but t<span></span>he </div>
<div>first month of the dependency case.<span> </span>§ <span>19<span>-1-</span></span><span>103(107) (“Placement </span>
</div>
<div>out of the home” means placement in a home or center o<span></span>perated or </div>
<div>licensed by a department of human services.). And the <span></span>court </div>
<div>allocated parental responsibilities between parents, not t<span></span>o a </div>
<div>nonparent. <span>See People in Interest of A.S.L.</span><span>,</span><span> </span>2022 COA 146, ¶ <span></span>20 </div>
<div>(holding that the court is required to consider reasonable eff<span></span>orts </div>
<div>when it enters an APR to a nonparent). Accordingly, t<span></span>he juvenile </div>
<div>court was not required to find that the Department made </div>
<div>reasonable efforts as part of the APR judgment. <span>See </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>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMV/nV4/MMVnV47XciMHbtksu3FbPZrYFymzyXg/Nf0Tzg7MWPSUY%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP7N367BEU&amp;Expires=1728752575&amp;Signature=Mn44uJCz%2BhDaMIQKTMEeC6vpVhM%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEFAaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIDj7cR0OBMabRkTk2QUqRstfM98v%2BA4BzCt6xji1GFifAiEA4gQNdr5dHtzR0MOdT32fT54yOD4H37LYnF0mayAt85squgUIqf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDCIClRpUprmqNm8LqyqOBTcyzDTzju23xBGUcTDytcTGcZEIkupaQl5mE6F1mCtFXvOxlaVm5jrYoDITdAaTvZuuOi6rsgxSS0322ASz9s2zVdF5HoKmH235hA4oJxZqTLnyhll69w9RxIso7m0rmSweo22NIsXockeO7C3ottDwhs2uLVkDo2ipgmz%2FIiDwWZ5%2BDQjGrOmbpKNaEfzR8dzRcETnwuMg9XiQRbQTENF5QVYfglRHR8gE7Vto6RmweXMAA%2FFUVy6dMYuYN%2Fgf8p1InHEp0aH34DFLWFsdFxr7AkTZiAmyBeVIMDT7itOW6rmG8%2BMtspW0t3RtTB0V23De5VvOtdJYRrOSbm726aApBu6PuTM3JLFJXMXgQQ5lPWxCjoUR%2FCYcoUdPTTiEIxlHb6YWdNnD9i24seGXxAjPQ4qz%2Bdl18HmlWLB1kiXT8qKnsvYIQ9%2BsA7QyA9%2FdTLbyX65XO4TUpin9HB%2FjDN3406s1rWGIoJjpWGbVZ9myw7TjOHnOa7e8ePxfOC0BgX1fHuWn9at%2B8WnFWwHw5v9AeN009oHf2wBcOYS%2B1gFAZMTxr6OAGr1JvrFckLPmK5X0dCINwSvHIZceQybT5rYidKvxgeeTBXE7oIQz5iz5Ol9dxiZOk8v%2FeTAci5x5NW%2BALL5IZ23saHxikaNwSpwwpw4UYHs3qIIaZF2HIlvPBKQ75go3iJPBUyfNqwxFyOFfAAd7QeLt5byLsvtd53iRB5fLV8eJv4PGcCCafCTD6aE1qJKSDJTDQI4a3q3hcWjzI3%2BNkQvGn8%2FhPS2swbRt%2BTzM3FZgGyacyKLE3pgqOWvHLhOG7lfKooO5%2F1WF2%2BbqWNMU3diAeGpLx9JjcXUwdmtXolmrQJogKKRXMTCitKq4BjqxAc2HCiGeTVINzAfJ43QMWm20e3af%2Bi84gBw%2BLidPofG5J5EIpCclbh87SF9KOtznWPatf%2FmDjSVmXyC1%2FhGs289ByBXfexnlPAKzzGtYmnULgEq35KyY3itjvz%2BuzaHyjHt2EBdFasu59rfhTK3JafqX3gFIxOwTHEXQIuFO%2Ft7lZFeD37nNoQQW0LrxgL4u07U6H%2BrS8uZGkFsV7oVIU74FK6JXf%2FYHmBzfzBiudQZMIg%3D%3D"><div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>§§ <span>19</span><span>-1-103(114), 19-3-100.5(1), 19-3-208(1), 19-3-604(2)(h); <span>cf. </span></span>
</div>
<div>A.S.L.<span>, ¶ 20. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 11<span> </span><span>Mother claims that reasonable-efforts findings were required </span>
</div>
<div>in her case because the child was at <span>“imminent risk” of out</span><span>-<span>of</span></span>-h<span></span>ome </div>
<div>placement.<span> <span>Mother asserts that father had “very extensive </span></span>
</div>
<div>responsibilities with regard to [his] other children.”<span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 12<span> <span>We aren’t persuaded. Nothing in the record suggests that<span></span> the </span></span>
</div>
<div>child was at any risk of out-<span>of</span>-home placement. To the cont<span></span>rary, </div>
<div>the juvenile court found that father and his wife were “fit<span></span> and </div>
<div>appropriate parents.”<span> <span>The court acknowledged that other children </span></span>
</div>
<div>in father’s home required “extra effort and care” but f<span></span>ound that </div>
<div>father was “able to successfully manage.”<span> <span>The court found that </span></span>
</div>
<div>“extensive” home studies in two counties found “no issues at all” </div>
<div>with father’s home and that father had “really demonstrated<span> the </span>
</div>
<div>ability to put [the child]’s needs at the forefront.”<span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>The record supports these findings. The caseworker testif<span></span>ied </span>
</div>
<div>that father had been “consistent and proactive in getting <span></span>the </div>
<div>services” that the child needed.<span> <span>The caseworker routinely observed </span></span>
</div>
<div>the child in father’s home and “never had concerns about [the </div>
<div>child’s] needs not being met.”<span> <span>Father was a certified foster parent </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="pf7" data-page-no="7">
<div><div>
<div>5 </div>
<div>before the child was placed with him, and the Department<span></span> </div>
<div>determined that father was “an appropriate and fit parent” at<span></span> the </div>
<div>beginning of the case. </div>
<div>¶ 14<span> </span><span>Additionally, when it entered the APR judgment, the court </span>
</div>
<div>found that “the Department ha[d] no protective concerns” an<span></span>d it </div>
<div>ordered the Department to be dismissed from protect<span></span>ive </div>
<div>supervision.<span> <span>The court record and its judgment granting an <span></span>APR to </span></span>
</div>
<div>father and dismissing the dependency and neglect action t<span></span>herefore </div>
<div>belie mother’s claim that the child was at “imminent risk” f<span></span>or </div>
<div>out<span>-</span>of<span>-home placement. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 15<span> <span>In any case, the juvenile court found that “the [Department’s] </span></span>
</div>
<div>efforts in this case were extraordinary” and were “way ab<span></span>ove and </div>
<div>beyond what is reasonable or expected.”<span> <span>The record supports t<span></span>he </span></span>
</div>
<div>court’s reasonable<span>-efforts findings. The Department devis<span></span>ed a </span>
</div>
<div>treatment plan for mother and assisted with transportation .<span></span> The </div>
<div>caseworker testified that the Department established “a signif<span></span>icant </div>
<div>amount of services” for mother, including many in her ho<span></span>me.<span> <span>The </span></span>
</div>
<div>Department also provided therapeutic family time because of the </div>
<div>“high level of need for clinical support”.<span> <span>The Department modified </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>6 </div>
<div>therapeutic family time at mother’s request to include recordings <span></span>of </div>
<div>sessions, written feedback, and multiple supervisors. </div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Reasonable Accommodations </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>Mother next contends that the juvenile court failed t<span></span>o provide </span>
</div>
<div>reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilitie<span></span>s </div>
<div>Act (ADA) because it denied her motion for in-home family time,<span></span> </div>
<div>more than a year before the APR hearing. </div>
<div>¶ 17<span> <span>But mother does not explain why any prior error in the <span></span>court’s </span></span>
</div>
<div>order denying her requested accommodation warrants a <span></span>reversal of </div>
<div>the APR judgment now. </div>
<div>¶ 18<span> </span><span>Recall that mother filed a competing APR motion. The <span></span>juvenile </span>
</div>
<div>court noted that the “issues that were at play as part of <span></span>the </div>
<div>dependency and neglect case” were not necessarily the same “issu<span></span>es </div>
<div>[that] impact the [court’s] analysis” in deciding competing APR </div>
<div>motions.<span> <span>The court found that mother consistently asked for her </span></span>
</div>
<div>own APR to enter, despite newly asserting during the APR he<span></span>aring </div>
<div>that the case should be kept open to provide additional service<span></span>s.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>Accordingly, the court found that evidence about whether th<span>e </span>
</div>
<div>Department complied with the ADA during the depe<span></span>ndency and </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>7 </div>
<div>neglect action wasn’t relevant to its determination of which <span></span>of the </div>
<div>proposed APRs should enter. </div>
<div>¶ 19<span> <span>We agree with the juvenile court’s analysis.<span> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 20<span> </span><span>To be sure, under the ADA, both the Department and the </span>
</div>
<div>juvenile court must provide reasonable accommodations t<span></span>o a parent </div>
<div>with a qualifying disability when providing services to that <span></span>parent. </div>
<div>42 U.S.C. § <span>12132 (“no qualified individual with a disability shall,<span></span> </span>
</div>
<div>by reason of such disability, be excluded from partic<span></span>ipation in or be </div>
<div>denied the benefits of the services . . . of a public entity,<span></span> or be </div>
<div>subjected to discrimination”); <span>see also<span> 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (defining </span></span>
</div>
<div>“disability” under the ADA); 42 U.S.C. <span>§ 12131</span>(2) (defining “public </div>
<div>entity” and “qualified individual” under the ADA).<span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 21<span> <span>Additionally, “[a] parent’s disability alone must not serve as a </span></span>
</div>
<div>basis for denial or restriction of parenting time or parental </div>
<div>responsibilities” in APR judgments issued through depen<span></span>dency and </div>
<div>neglect actions, except where the health and welfare of the <span></span>child are </div>
<div>impacted. § <span>24</span><span>-<span>34</span></span>-805(2)(a)(III), C.R.S. 2024. </div>
<div>¶ 22<span> </span><span>While a juvenile court must consider whether a department </span>
</div>
<div>provided reasonable accommodations when determining if<span></span> a </div>
<div>department provided reasonable efforts to a parent,<span></span> a </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>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MME/7E6/MME7E6lP6eopkJpoREW3/GSFEioA3SETl4roos8Xu8RKw%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP7N367BEU&amp;Expires=1728752575&amp;Signature=mYOdwdd%2BrgC5JgkvbdMTgCYQy1k%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEFAaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIDj7cR0OBMabRkTk2QUqRstfM98v%2BA4BzCt6xji1GFifAiEA4gQNdr5dHtzR0MOdT32fT54yOD4H37LYnF0mayAt85squgUIqf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDCIClRpUprmqNm8LqyqOBTcyzDTzju23xBGUcTDytcTGcZEIkupaQl5mE6F1mCtFXvOxlaVm5jrYoDITdAaTvZuuOi6rsgxSS0322ASz9s2zVdF5HoKmH235hA4oJxZqTLnyhll69w9RxIso7m0rmSweo22NIsXockeO7C3ottDwhs2uLVkDo2ipgmz%2FIiDwWZ5%2BDQjGrOmbpKNaEfzR8dzRcETnwuMg9XiQRbQTENF5QVYfglRHR8gE7Vto6RmweXMAA%2FFUVy6dMYuYN%2Fgf8p1InHEp0aH34DFLWFsdFxr7AkTZiAmyBeVIMDT7itOW6rmG8%2BMtspW0t3RtTB0V23De5VvOtdJYRrOSbm726aApBu6PuTM3JLFJXMXgQQ5lPWxCjoUR%2FCYcoUdPTTiEIxlHb6YWdNnD9i24seGXxAjPQ4qz%2Bdl18HmlWLB1kiXT8qKnsvYIQ9%2BsA7QyA9%2FdTLbyX65XO4TUpin9HB%2FjDN3406s1rWGIoJjpWGbVZ9myw7TjOHnOa7e8ePxfOC0BgX1fHuWn9at%2B8WnFWwHw5v9AeN009oHf2wBcOYS%2B1gFAZMTxr6OAGr1JvrFckLPmK5X0dCINwSvHIZceQybT5rYidKvxgeeTBXE7oIQz5iz5Ol9dxiZOk8v%2FeTAci5x5NW%2BALL5IZ23saHxikaNwSpwwpw4UYHs3qIIaZF2HIlvPBKQ75go3iJPBUyfNqwxFyOFfAAd7QeLt5byLsvtd53iRB5fLV8eJv4PGcCCafCTD6aE1qJKSDJTDQI4a3q3hcWjzI3%2BNkQvGn8%2FhPS2swbRt%2BTzM3FZgGyacyKLE3pgqOWvHLhOG7lfKooO5%2F1WF2%2BbqWNMU3diAeGpLx9JjcXUwdmtXolmrQJogKKRXMTCitKq4BjqxAc2HCiGeTVINzAfJ43QMWm20e3af%2Bi84gBw%2BLidPofG5J5EIpCclbh87SF9KOtznWPatf%2FmDjSVmXyC1%2FhGs289ByBXfexnlPAKzzGtYmnULgEq35KyY3itjvz%2BuzaHyjHt2EBdFasu59rfhTK3JafqX3gFIxOwTHEXQIuFO%2Ft7lZFeD37nNoQQW0LrxgL4u07U6H%2BrS8uZGkFsV7oVIU74FK6JXf%2FYHmBzfzBiudQZMIg%3D%3D"><div>
<div>8 </div>
<div>reasonable-efforts finding was not required here because, as </div>
<div>discussed above, the child remained with father throughout t<span></span>he </div>
<div>case, she was not at imminent risk of removal, and the court </div>
<div>allocated responsibilities between mother and father, rath<span></span>er than to </div>
<div>a nonparent. <span>See People in Interest of S.K.</span>, 2019 COA 36, <span></span>¶ 34; <span>see </span>
</div>
<div>also <span>§§ <span>19<span>-1-103(114), 19-3-100.5(1), 19-3-208(1), 19-3-604(<span></span>2)(h); </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>cf. A.S.L.<span>, ¶ 20. Thus, we agree with the juvenile court that wheth<span></span>er </span>
</div>
<div>the Department provided reasonable accommodations w<span>asn’t </span>
</div>
<div>relevant to its analysis related to entering an APR to a parent<span></span>. </div>
<div>¶ 23<span> <span>More importantly, mother doesn’t claim that the APR </span></span>
</div>
<div>judgment unduly restricted her parenting time or parent<span></span>al </div>
<div>responsibilities, runs afoul of other state or federal directives </div>
<div>concerning the ADA, or is in any way deficient. Absent such a </div>
<div>showing, mother’s<span> request to vacate the APR judgment <span></span>because of </span>
</div>
<div>any error in denying a request for ADA accommodations du<span></span>ring the </div>
<div>dependency and neglect must fail. <span>See </span>C.R.C.P. 61; <span>see also People </span>
</div>
<div>in Interest of C.C.<span>, 2022 COA 81, ¶ 20 (alleged errors not <span></span>affecting </span>
</div>
<div>the substantial rights of a party are harmless). </div>
<div>IV.<span> </span><span>Disposition </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 24<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="pfb" data-page-no="b">
<div><div>
<div>9 </div>
<div>JUDGE WELLING and JUDGE BROWN 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>