Background
Rio Blanco County filed a dependency-and-neglect petition concerning D.S. and T.B. after law enforcement found the children, then eight and nine, shirtless and riding bicycles on a highway. The children reported that mother’s husband had hog-tied and handcuffed them and taped their mouths, prompting them to run away. The petition also alleged that mother refused a caseworker access to the children, made a statement about understanding how people kill their children, had not enrolled the children in school, and had prior dependency-and-neglect proceedings involving other children in Missouri and Kansas.
The juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent and neglected after a jury trial that mother did not attend, and it adopted a treatment plan for her. Following a termination hearing that mother also did not attend, the court terminated her parental relationships, finding that she had not had family time with the children since removal, had not complied with most of her treatment plan, and that no less drastic alternative existed.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Mother argued for the first time on appeal that allocating parental responsibilities to one or both children’s fathers would have been a less drastic alternative to terminating her rights.
The court declined to consider that argument because mother had not preserved it in the juvenile court. Her counsel’s closing argument and objection at the permanency-planning hearing did not mention less drastic alternatives or request an allocation of parental responsibilities to either father. The juvenile court’s general advisement that it had to consider less drastic alternatives did not preserve mother’s unraised argument.
Key Takeaways
- A parent must present a proposed less drastic alternative to the juvenile court and seek relief to preserve the issue for appeal.
- Merely referring to facts or possible placements, without asking the court to act, is insufficient.
- An appellate court generally will not review an unpreserved issue in a dependency-and-neglect case.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that parents challenging termination must timely litigate specific alternatives to termination in juvenile court. A general record about potential caregivers or the court’s duty to consider alternatives will not substitute for a request that the court consider a particular allocation of parental responsibilities.