Background
The Mesa County Department of Human Services opened a case after receiving multiple referrals concerning the three children’s environment with their mother (J.J.), ages five, three, and one at the time. Concerns included mother leaving alcohol and cigarettes within the children’s reach, claiming to have seen aliens in her home, and overdosing on medication. The children were initially placed in kinship care, but after mother told a therapist she could no longer care for them, a safety plan was created.
The Department filed a dependency and neglect petition. Mother entered a no contest plea to the injurious environment allegation, and the children were adjudicated dependent and neglected. The court approved a treatment plan requiring mother to engage in family time (contingent on parenting time assessment recommendations), child-parent psychotherapy (CPP), and parent-child interactional therapy (PCIT). Six months after the petition, the children returned to mother, but she moved to Oklahoma with them without court permission. While there, mother was placed on a psychiatric hold. The Department removed the children again and placed them in Colorado foster care, where they remained. Mother stayed in Oklahoma.
The Department arranged supervised and later therapeutic family time, but the children showed significant trauma responses to visits. Nearly a year before the termination hearing, the court restricted family time after finding the children were “showing trauma around visits including outbursts and other behaviors.” Although restrictions were later lifted, mother had no further family time. More than two years after the initial petition, the Department moved to terminate parental rights after a ten-day evidentiary hearing held over three and a half months.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights. The court held that the Mesa County Department of Human Services made “reasonable efforts” to rehabilitate the mother despite the absence of actual family time. The court found that the Department “tried hard over and over and over again for many months to get these visits to occur,” including communicating with the children to encourage visitation, coordinating with all parties in the case, contracting with agencies, arranging transportation, and even paying for mother’s flights and hotel rooms to travel from Oklahoma to Colorado. The fact that these services were unsuccessful did not render the Department’s efforts unreasonable.
The record showed the children “steadfastly refused to have contact with [mother] for at least a year.” Professional testimony established that the children experienced severe trauma responses to mother’s name or reminders of her, and therapists testified that forced family time would cause further “trauma” and “harm” to the children. The court noted that the children’s therapist had undertaken substantial work including trauma narratives, play therapy, attachment work, and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing to prepare them for visits, all without success. A therapeutic visitation supervisor agreed it would damage the children to coerce them into visits.
Regarding CPP and PCIT, the court found that these therapies required mother to be in Colorado due to licensing restrictions that prevented providers from conducting the therapies “over state lines.” Although the Department offered to help mother pay for a short-term rental so she could come to Colorado, mother declined and retracted her offers to move. The court rejected mother’s challenge to the treatment plan, noting that all parties confirmed the plan was appropriate and judicial officers had found it appropriate throughout the three-year case. The court also found any hearsay error in admitting the CASA’s testimony about the child’s statements was harmless, as the statements were brief, not a substantial focus of testimony, and cumulative of other properly admitted evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Reasonable efforts by a department of human services means “exercise of diligence and care,” not necessarily successful outcomes; unsuccessful services do not render efforts unreasonable.
- A child’s refusal to participate in family reunification services, even when the department makes substantial efforts, may support termination of parental rights where the refusal stems from documented trauma.
- Geographic separation created by a parent’s out-of-state relocation does not excuse the department’s obligation to make reasonable efforts but may justify limitation of certain services requiring physical presence in the same state.
- Hearsay error in dependency/neglect proceedings is harmless when the challenged statements are brief, not a substantial focus of testimony, and cumulative of properly admitted evidence on the same topic.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance on what constitutes “reasonable efforts” by a department of human services in parental termination cases under Colorado law. It establishes that a department satisfies its obligation through diligent attempts to provide services, even when those efforts do not result in successful reunification. The holding is particularly significant for cases involving children with documented trauma responses, as it recognizes that forcing family contact against a child’s expressed wishes and documented therapeutic harm may not be in the child’s best interest, regardless of the department’s efforts.
The decision also has practical implications for cases involving out-of-state parents. While geographic separation does not excuse the department from reasonable efforts, it may justify the department’s inability to provide certain in-person services or family time without the parent relocating. The court’s affirmation demonstrates that a parent’s failure or refusal to relocate to the same state as their children in foster care—particularly when offered financial assistance—may weigh against finding the department acted unreasonably in limiting reunification services.