Background
The Department filed a dependency-and-neglect petition after Ca.M. tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl at birth and experienced withdrawal symptoms. The child was placed with his maternal step-grandmother. Father admitted the child was in an injurious environment, and the juvenile court adopted a treatment plan addressing parenting, housing and financial stability, probation compliance, mental-health treatment, family time, and sobriety.
Father later asserted that PTSD, ADHD, and intellectual and developmental disabilities entitled him to ADA accommodations. He requested, among other things, recognition of his medical-marijuana use, flexible scheduling, written reminders, and regular check-ins. After a three-day termination hearing, the juvenile court terminated his parental rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Father did not preserve his due-process challenge to being muted during part of his testimony because counsel agreed to the procedure and never argued to the juvenile court that it violated due process. In any event, father showed no prejudice: he was recalled and testified unmuted, but did not identify evidence he was unable to present.
The court also upheld the findings that the Department made reasonable rehabilitation efforts and reasonably accommodated father’s disabilities. The record showed that the Department arranged services and family time, made referrals, assisted with treatment intake and scheduling, supplied written materials and housing resources, and offered transportation assistance. The court further concluded that additional time was not warranted and that adoption, rather than an allocation of parental responsibilities, best provided the young child needed permanence and stability.
Key Takeaways
- A parent must raise the substance of a procedural objection in juvenile court to preserve it for appeal.
- ADA accommodations are considered within the reasonable-efforts analysis, but a parent must identify needed modifications and use offered services.
- A viable less-drastic alternative must be the child’s best option, not merely an adequate arrangement.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that alleged shortcomings in accommodations or services will not reverse a termination order without record-supported prejudice or a showing that additional measures would likely have changed the result. It also emphasizes the weight Colorado courts give to timely permanency for very young children.