Peo in Interest of EKT

24CA0021 Peo in Interest of EKT 07-11-2024

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 24CA0021

Adams County District Court No. 21JV84

Honorable Emily Lieberman, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Appellee,

In the Interest of E.K.T. and E.G.T., Children,

and Concerning B.S.S.,

Appellant.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division VII

Opinion by JUDGE KUHN

Tow and Gomez, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)

Announced July 11, 2024

Heidi Miller, County Attorney, Meredith Karre, Assistant County Attorney,

Westminster, Colorado, for Appellee

Debra W. Dodd, Guardian Ad Litem

Lindsey Parlin, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for

Appellant

1

¶ 1 In this dependency and neglect proceeding, B.S.S. (mother)

appeals the judgment terminating her parent-child legal

relationships with E.K.T and E.G.T. (the children). We affirm.

I. Background

¶ 2 In March 2021, the Adams County Department of Human

Services filed a petition in dependency or neglect regarding the

children, who were then two years old and seven months old. The

Department alleged concerns about the parents’ drug use and the

habitability of the home due to electrical issues. The children were

briefly placed with kin before being moved to foster care.

¶ 3 The juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent and

neglected. It adopted a treatment plan for mother that required her

to cooperate and communicate with the Department, stabilize her

mental health, engage in substance abuse treatment, work on her

relationship with the children, and meet the children’s basic needs.

¶ 4 About seven months later, the Department moved to terminate

mother’s parental rights. However, the Department agreed to

continue the termination hearing because mother had been

engaging in treatment and was sober. The children were returned

to mother’s care under intensive supervision and remained with her

2

for roughly ten months. But after mother tested positive for

methamphetamine and stopped engaging in treatment, the children

were again removed from her care. The Department then renewed

its motion to terminate, and after a hearing more than two and a

half years after the petition was filed, the juvenile court granted the

motion.

II. Discussion

¶ 5 Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court

erred by failing to provide her with a reasonable amount of time to

comply with her treatment plan before terminating her parental

rights. She argues that she had made significant progress toward

her goals and would have been in the position to reunify with her

children in the near future if the court had allowed more time. We

discern no error.

A. Standard of Review

¶ 6 Whether a juvenile court properly terminated parental rights

presents a mixed question of law and fact because it involves

application of the termination statute to evidentiary facts. People in

Interest of S.R.N.J-S., 2020 COA 12, ¶ 10. We review the juvenile

court’s factual findings for clear error, accepting them if they have

3

record support. Id. But we review de novo the court’s legal

conclusions based on those facts. Id.

¶ 7 The credibility of the witnesses, as well as the sufficiency,

probative effect and weight of the evidence, and the inferences and

conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, are within the province

of the juvenile court. People in Interest of A.J.L., 243 P.3d 244, 249-

50 (Colo. 2010). Accordingly, it’s not our role to reweigh the

evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the court. People in

Interest of K.L.W., 2021 COA 56, ¶ 62.

B. Applicable Law

¶ 8 The juvenile court may terminate parental rights if it finds, by

clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the child was adjudicated

dependent or neglected; (2) the parent has not complied with an

appropriate, court-approved treatment plan or the plan has not

been successful; (3) the parent is unfit; and (4) the parent’s conduct

or condition is unlikely to change in a reasonable time.

§ 19-3-604(1)(c), C.R.S. 2023.

¶ 9 An unfit parent is one whose conduct or condition renders the

parent unable or unwilling to give a child reasonable parental care.

People in Interest of S.Z.S., 2022 COA 133, ¶ 23. “Reasonable

4

parental care requires, at a minimum, that the parent provide

nurturing and protection adequate to meet the child’s physical,

emotional, and mental health needs.” S.R.N.J-S., ¶ 9. A court may

consider a parent’s noncompliance with a treatment plan in

determining unfitness. People in Interest of D.P., 181 P.3d 403, 408

(Colo. App. 2008).

¶ 10 In determining whether a parent’s conduct or condition is

likely to change and whether the parent can become fit in a

reasonable time, the court may consider several factors, including

(1) whether any change occurred during the dependency and

neglect proceeding; (2) the parent’s social history; and (3) the

chronic or long-term nature of the parent’s conduct or condition.

K.D. v. People, 139 P.3d 695, 700 (Colo. 2006).

¶ 11 A parent must have a reasonable amount of time to work on a

treatment plan before the juvenile court terminates their parental

rights. People in Interest of D.Y., 176 P.3d 874, 876 (Colo. App.

2007). The determination of a reasonable period is necessarily fact-

specific, and thus, what constitutes a reasonable time to comply

with a treatment plan may vary from case to case. Id. Periods as

short as five to nine months have been held to be sufficient to

5

comply with a treatment plan.  People in Interest of A.J., 143 P.3d

1143, 1152 (Colo. App. 2006).

¶ 12 A reasonable time is not an indefinite time, and it must be

determined by considering the physical, mental, and emotional

conditions and needs of the child. S.Z.S., ¶ 24. When the children

are under six years old when the petition is filed, the juvenile court

must also consider the expedited permanency planning (EPP)

provisions, which require that the children be placed in a

permanent home as expeditiously as possible. §§ 19-1-102(1.6),

19-1-123, 19-3-702(5)(c), C.R.S. 2023; see also S.Z.S., ¶ 25.

C. Analysis

¶ 13 The juvenile court considered whether mother could become fit

within a reasonable time if she was given more time to engage in

treatment but ultimately found that she could not. The court found

that the primary issue throughout the case was mother’s substance

use. And it found that there had been “multiple attempts at

treatment” but mother had not been able to remain sober or fully

address her substance abuse issues.

¶ 14 The court acknowledged that mother maintained sobriety and

engaged in treatment for short periods of time, but it also found

6

that she was unable to demonstrate long-term sobriety. The court

took judicial notice of mother’s prior dependency and neglect cases,

both of which ended in termination, and found that mother did not

successfully address her substance use in those cases either.

Thus, the court found that while mother had been given about two

years to address her substance use in this case, her substance use

had been an unresolved issue for at least six years.

¶ 15 Ultimately, the court found that mother was “back in the same

place” as she was in her prior cases and that the “same problems

addressed in the treatment plan exist[ed] without adequate

improvement” at the time of termination. The court also found that

while it appeared that mother wanted to change, her substance use

issue was “chronic” and “long-term.”

¶ 16 The record supports the court’s findings. Over two and a half

years passed between the adoption of mother’s treatment plan and

the termination hearing. The record shows that during this time,

mother had not successfully resolved the concerns about her

substance use.

¶ 17 The caseworker testified that mother had not provided a urine

sample for the two months leading up to the hearing, and before

7

that, mother had positive tests for methamphetamine throughout

the case. Mother testified that the last time she used was about

three weeks before the termination hearing.

¶ 18 The caseworker’s supervisor testified that at the time of the

termination hearing, mother was not engaged in substance abuse

treatment. Both the caseworker and her supervisor testified that

while mother attempted to engage with multiple different treatment

providers, including at least three outpatient and four inpatient

programs, she was never able to successfully complete treatment or

maintain sobriety. And they noted the continuing pattern from

mother’s prior cases, which were opened based on concerns about

her substance abuse. Both the caseworker and her supervisor

opined that mother would not be able to become compliant with the

substance use component of her treatment plan even if she was

given more time.

¶ 19 Mother correctly points out that there was a period of time in

which she maintained consistent contact with the caseworker, was

sober and engaged in treatment, attended family time, and met the

children’s basic needs. But partial or even substantial compliance

8

with a treatment plan does not necessarily render a parent fit. See

People in Interest of K.B., 2016 COA 21, ¶ 26.

¶ 20 Finally, the juvenile court also determined that the case was

subject to the EPP provisions. The court found that moving from

placement to placement had been detrimental to the children and

that it was not in their best interests to wait any longer for

permanency. And the court found that the only way to ensure

permanency was through adoption.

¶ 21 Within the two and a half years the case was open, the

children had six different out-of-home placements in addition to the

period of time they were placed back in mother’s care. The

caseworker’s supervisor opined that the children were struggling

with the lack of permanency and that being “bounced around”

would continue to have a negative effect on their development and

well-being. The caseworker testified that moving from placement to

placement had been difficult and confusing for the children. She

opined that the children needed to have a consistent caregiver and

to know where their permanent home was going to be. Both the

caseworker and her supervisor confirmed that the children could

not wait any longer for permanency.

9

¶ 22 In sum, the juvenile court determined that mother could not

become fit within a reasonable time by considering the evidence,

including evidence of mother’s partial compliance and the children’s

needs. Because the record supports the court’s determination, we

have no basis to disturb the judgment.

III. Disposition

¶ 23 The judgment is affirmed.

JUDGE TOW and JUDGE GOMEZ concur.