Background
The Larimer County Department of Human Services filed this dependency-and-neglect case after E.A.B. was born exposed to illicit substances. Mother admitted using illicit substances on the day of the child’s birth, and father admitted recent and ongoing substance use. The parents also had an open dependency-and-neglect case involving the child’s older siblings.
Father admitted the petition’s allegations, and the juvenile court adjudicated E.A.B. dependent or neglected and adopted a treatment plan. After father’s parental rights to the child’s older siblings were terminated, the Boulder County Department of Human Services took over this case and moved to terminate father’s rights to E.A.B. The juvenile court granted the motion after a contested hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the juvenile court did not reversibly err by denying father’s request to continue the termination hearing. The court permissibly considered the expedited-permanency-planning requirements, the child’s need for permanency, the case’s nearly year-long duration, father’s lack of treatment-plan progress, and the inability to promptly reset the hearing. Father also did not show prejudice: the court allowed counsel opportunities to consult with him and paused proceedings for a discussion of his right to testify.
The court also rejected father’s ineffective-assistance claim because he did not specifically allege a reasonable probability that two additional hours of preparation would have changed the result. Finally, the court held that the Department made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate father. Although father argued that it should have provided crisis counseling after the prior termination involving his older children, the record showed that the Department offered services and tried to keep father engaged, but father’s whereabouts became unknown and he declined to participate.
Key Takeaways
- A continuance in an expedited permanency case requires good cause and must serve the child’s best interests.
- A parent claiming ineffective assistance must identify specific prejudice, not merely assert that more preparation would have helped.
- Reasonable efforts are assessed under the totality of services offered, including a parent’s willingness to engage with them.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that permanency considerations can support denying a last-minute continuance in a termination proceeding, particularly where the parent cannot identify concrete resulting prejudice. It also confirms that a Department’s reasonable-efforts obligation does not require services that could not be delivered because the parent disengaged or could not be located.