Background
The child, A.Q., was born in 2017 while her mother, J.D., was incarcerated. Based on the mother’s incarceration and other concerns, the Department of Human Services initiated a dependency and neglect case, and the child was placed with her paternal grandparents, M.M.L. and B.M., where she has since resided. In 2018, the juvenile court entered an allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) order granting physical custody and sole decision-making authority to the paternal grandparents, while allowing the mother supervised parenting time at the grandparents’ discretion.
In 2024, the paternal grandparents filed a petition for custodial adoption under section 19-5-203(1)(k), C.R.S. 2026. Following a hearing, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights and granted the adoption petition. The mother appealed, challenging the termination on grounds that the court erred in finding abandonment and failure to provide reasonable support.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Under section 19-5-203(1)(k), a child may be adopted if the birth parents have abandoned the child for one year or more, or have failed without cause to provide reasonable support for one year or more, with such criteria established by clear and convincing evidence. The court reviews the juvenile court’s factual determinations for clear error.
Regarding abandonment, the mother argued the juvenile court failed to apply the required totality of the circumstances analysis, pointing to the court’s statement that her parental alienation argument was “not relevant.” The appellate court acknowledged this wording was imprecise but declined to find reversible error because the record showed the court explicitly considered all circumstances, including the alienation argument. The juvenile court found the mother took no identifiable action to parent in the limited ways possible during the relevant period, and that even under a broader totality analysis, her actions demonstrated intent to abandon. The court distinguished In re J.A.V., 206 P.3d 467 (Colo. App. 2009), noting that unlike that case where a protection order restrained contact, the mother here had no such restrictions and had a court order allowing supervised parenting time. The court also noted the mother had multiple parole opportunities that would have enabled greater parenting chances but deliberately sabotaged her release.
Regarding failure to support, the mother argued the court relied on a generalized expectation of what an incarcerated parent should do rather than her actual financial circumstances. The appellate court rejected this, noting the juvenile court based its finding on review of the mother’s financial records and employment testimony. The juvenile court found that even with limited income, the mother had the ability to express intent to support within means reasonable to her. The court noted that despite minimal funds in 2018 and 2019, the mother provided some support those years, and that she had employment opportunities while incarcerated but difficulty maintaining steady employment. The court rejected the argument that the grandparents’ failure to confirm receipt of funds excused the mother’s failure to provide support, finding no legal authority for this proposition.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile court’s imprecise wording regarding the relevance of parental alienation arguments does not constitute reversible error when the record demonstrates the court actually considered all circumstances, including the alienation claim, in its totality of the circumstances analysis.
- Incarcerated parents retain the obligation to provide reasonable child support within their means; having limited income does not excuse the failure to provide some measure of support, particularly when the parent has employment opportunities while incarcerated.
- A parent’s failure to maintain contact with a child, even when facing barriers, may demonstrate intent to abandon when the parent fails to take credible active measures to overcome those barriers, especially when the parent has court-ordered parenting time available.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that termination of parental rights in custodial adoption proceedings requires clear and convincing evidence of abandonment or failure to support, but appellate courts will defer to juvenile courts’ credibility determinations and weighing of evidence. The ruling clarifies that incarcerated parents must demonstrate active efforts to parent within their limited means and cannot rely solely on allegations of parental alienation or guardians’ conduct to excuse prolonged absence from a child’s life.