Background
The Arapahoe County Department of Human Services filed a dependency-and-neglect petition concerning newborn A.H. The petition alleged that the child’s umbilical cord tested positive for substances and raised concerns about domestic violence between mother S.W. and father G.M. The juvenile court adjudicated A.H. dependent and neglected and adopted treatment plans for both parents. Except for two brief emergency removals, A.H. remained with the parents—first with mother and later with father.
Nineteen months after the petition was filed, the juvenile court awarded father sole decision-making authority and primary residential custody. Mother received unsupervised parenting time every other week from Thursday night through Sunday night. She appealed, challenging the court’s jurisdiction, compliance with Indian Child Welfare Act inquiry requirements, and the allocation of parental responsibilities.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. It rejected mother’s jurisdictional argument because the juvenile court had not decided parentage and no party had requested a parentage determination under the Uniform Parentage Act. The Children’s Code does not require a legal-parentage determination in every dependency case before adjudication, and mother lacked standing to challenge the adjudication as to father.
The court also found no basis for reversal under ICWA. The shelter-hearing minute order indicated that the juvenile court found ICWA did not apply to either parent, and the incomplete appellate record required a presumption that the finding was supported. Any failure to inquire at that hearing was harmless because the appealed parental-responsibility proceeding contemplated custody only with one of the child’s parents, not foster care or placement with a nonparent, and therefore was not an ICWA child-custody proceeding.
Finally, the court declined to consider mother’s unpreserved constitutional challenge to restrictions on who could attend her parenting time. It held that the juvenile court acted within its discretion in awarding father primary custody and sole decision-making. Evidence supported findings that the child was thriving with father, father consistently addressed the child’s medical needs, and mother had failed to follow through on vaccinations, physical therapy, surgery, and other care. The juvenile court acknowledged the domestic-violence concerns but found that father had acted in the child’s best interests.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile court does not lose subject-matter jurisdiction merely because it does not conduct Uniform Parentage Act proceedings when no party requests a parentage determination and the court makes no parentage finding.
- An allocation-of-parental-responsibilities proceeding contemplating custody only with a parent is not an ICWA child-custody proceeding requiring the ICWA inquiry applicable to foster-care or nonparent placements.
- An appellate court will not consider an unpreserved constitutional claim or reweigh evidence supporting a juvenile court’s child-safety and best-interests findings.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes dependency adjudication from parentage adjudication and clarifies that the Uniform Parentage Act need not be invoked automatically in every dependency case. It also limits ICWA’s procedural requirements in parental-responsibility proceedings where custody will remain with one of the child’s parents.
For dependency practitioners, the opinion underscores the importance of preserving constitutional objections in the juvenile court and supplying a complete appellate record. It also confirms the broad discretion juvenile courts retain when allocating parental responsibilities based on supported findings about a child’s safety, medical care, and best interests.