Background
The Larimer County Department of Human Services began working voluntarily with C.W.P. after receiving a report that the hotel room he shared with his eleven-year-old child, C.D.P., and the child’s sibling was unsanitary. C.D.P. had never attended school, had a scalp infection, and was suspected to be on the autism spectrum. In April 2024, father left Colorado with C.D.P. while on probation. Authorities later found them in Alabama, arrested father for a probation violation, and returned C.D.P. to Colorado, where the Department placed him in foster care and filed a dependency-and-neglect petition.
The juvenile court adjudicated C.D.P. dependent and neglected and adopted a treatment plan requiring father to obtain a combined mental-health and substance-use assessment, cooperate with the Department, provide safe and stable housing, and maintain parenting time. Father did not return to Colorado. After a termination hearing, the juvenile court terminated his parental rights. Father and C.D.P. appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It declined to consider father’s challenge to a Department caseworker’s expert testimony because his trial objection—that the proposed area of expertise was too vague—did not specifically invoke the reliability, qualifications, usefulness, or prejudice factors required for a challenge under People v. Shreck.
The record supported the finding that father was unlikely to become fit within a reasonable time. He had not completed his treatment plan, had inconsistent contact with the Department and C.D.P., tested positive for methamphetamine, did not complete a requested follow-up test or assessment, and did not provide information needed for a home study. The court also upheld the finding that termination, rather than an allocation of parental responsibilities or indefinitely continued reunification efforts, was in C.D.P.’s best interests given his substantial developmental, educational, therapeutic, and consistency needs. The juvenile court considered C.D.P.’s opposition to termination but permissibly concluded that termination was nevertheless best for him.
Key Takeaways
- A general objection to an expert’s proposed field of testimony does not preserve a Shreck-based appellate challenge.
- A parent’s claimed recent stability does not require additional treatment-plan time when the record shows little meaningful progress and the child cannot reasonably wait.
- A child’s stated opposition to termination must be considered, but it is not dispositive of the child’s best interests.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that termination cases turn on the child’s particular needs and timeframe, not on an indefinite possibility that a parent might eventually comply. It also confirms that a court may reject less drastic alternatives even when no adoptive placement is immediately identified, if those alternatives are not in the child’s best interests.