Background
The Arapahoe County Department of Human Services filed a dependency-and-neglect petition in August 2022 based on concerns that mother physically abused B.R. The juvenile court adjudicated B.R. dependent and neglected and adopted treatment plans for both parents.
Father briefly received placement of B.R. in Oklahoma, but the court removed the then-two-year-old child after learning father had given the child marijuana edibles. After B.R. returned to Colorado, the guardian ad litem sought termination. Following a seven-day hearing, the juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights in October 2025.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that record-supported findings established father was unfit and unlikely to become fit within a reasonable time. The termination ruling did not rest on a single poor decision to give B.R. marijuana; rather, that decision reflected father’s poor judgment, while his inconsistent treatment participation, missed family time, difficulty meeting B.R.’s needs during visits, and lack of progress supported the ruling.
The court also rejected mother’s claim that inadequate family-time and therapeutic services required more time. The juvenile court could find that both the Department and mother contributed to inconsistent visits, and that mother was responsible for most of the delay in beginning child-parent psychotherapy after the Department’s referral. Although B.R. needed substantial therapeutic work to rebuild the relationship, the child’s need for permanency and the lack of significant progress supported the conclusion that a reasonable time had passed.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s partial compliance with a treatment plan does not preclude a fitness finding when meaningful progress and safe parenting remain lacking.
- Appellate courts will not reweigh evidence or reassess the juvenile court’s credibility determinations.
- For a young child in an expedited permanency case, the child’s need for timely stability may outweigh additional time for late treatment engagement.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that termination analysis is child-specific and forward-looking. Even where parents have begun services or shown some improvement, courts may terminate when the record supports a finding that the child cannot safely wait longer for sustained progress.