Background
The Otero County Department of Human Services filed a dependency-or-neglect petition concerning J.D.’s three children, alleging, among other things, concerns about the mother’s substance use. Both parents admitted the petition, the juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent or neglected, and the court adopted treatment plans for the parents.
After initially moving to terminate both parents’ rights, the Department later sought an allocation of parental responsibilities to the children’s kinship placement providers. Without taking evidence and over the mother’s objection, the juvenile court granted the allocation, certified it into a domestic-relations case, and closed the juvenile case. The mother appealed the parenting-time provisions and the handling of possible Indian heritage.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the portion of the judgment allowing the kinship placement providers to decide what parenting time would occur if the parties could not agree. Because only a court may allocate parenting time, that provision was an improper delegation of judicial authority. On remand, the juvenile court must enter a parenting-time order serving the children’s and the public’s interests and provide the parties an opportunity to present evidence about the mother’s and children’s current circumstances.
The court also held that the father’s report of possible Ute heritage did not, by itself, trigger the federal Indian Child Welfare Act’s notice requirements. It did, however, trigger the Department’s due-diligence obligations under the Colorado Indian Child Welfare Act. Because the record did not document the required inquiry or contain the juvenile court’s required written findings, the court directed the Department to comply with CICWA on remand and the juvenile court to make those findings. The unappealed portions of the judgment remained undisturbed.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile court may not delegate decisions about whether parenting time occurs to kinship placement providers or other parties.
- On remand, the parties must be given an opportunity to present evidence concerning current circumstances before the court determines parenting time.
- A report of possible Indian heritage may trigger CICWA’s inquiry, documentation, and written-finding requirements even when it is insufficient to trigger ICWA notice.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that parenting-time determinations remain the court’s responsibility when parental responsibilities are allocated to nonparents in a dependency-or-neglect case. An order cannot make parenting time contingent on the placement providers’ unilateral decision.
It also underscores CICWA’s distinct procedural requirements. When information suggests that a child may have Indian heritage, departments must document their due-diligence efforts, and juvenile courts must make the written findings required by the statute.