People in Interest of D.H. — Colorado court upheld termination after finding ICWA active efforts satisfied

Case
The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of D.H., a Child, and Concerning J.H.
Court
Colorado Court of Appeals
Judge
Judge Schutz; Judge Dunn; Judge Navarro
Date Decided
September 10, 2026
Docket No.
26CA0168
Topics
ICWA; parental-rights termination; dependency and neglect; active efforts
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

The Arapahoe County Department of Human Services filed a dependency-and-neglect petition after D.H. was born in September 2023, alleging both parents had substance-dependence issues and that the newborn’s umbilical cord tested positive for substances. The Cherokee Nation received notice shortly after the case began and intervened in December 2023.

The juvenile court initially accepted a deferred adjudication agreement involving father, J.H., but later adjudicated D.H. dependent and neglected and adopted treatment plans for both parents. After a contested hearing in December 2025, the court terminated both parents’ rights. Father alone appealed.

The Court’s Holding

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Father’s sole appellate argument was that the Department had not made the “active efforts” required by the Indian Child Welfare Act before termination because it did not make sufficient efforts to secure an ICWA-compliant placement.

The record supported the juvenile court’s finding that active efforts occurred. The Department consulted father, the Cherokee Nation, and father’s family; contacted relatives father identified; conducted a diligent search for additional relatives; and found that none of the contacted relatives would serve as placement providers. The Nation’s qualified expert independently contacted relatives, confirmed their unwillingness, and testified that the Department had made active efforts and due diligence. The court held that ICWA does not require persistence in futile placement efforts or successful efforts, particularly where the Tribe approved the placement.

Key Takeaways

  • ICWA active efforts are evaluated under the totality of the circumstances and need not succeed to satisfy the statute.
  • An agency is not required to continue pursuing futile efforts to locate an ICWA-compliant placement after relatives decline placement.
  • Evidence that the Tribe’s qualified expert found active efforts and that the Tribe approved the placement supported affirmance.

Why It Matters

The decision confirms that active efforts under ICWA require affirmative and thorough services tailored to the case, but do not impose a guarantee that an Indian-family or other preferred placement will be found. Agencies should document outreach to relatives, consultation with the Tribe, and the reasons potential placements are unavailable.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top