People in Interest of L.R-J.M. — Colorado appeals court upholds dependency-and-neglect adjudication after father failed key deferred-adjudication terms

Case
The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of L.R-J.M. and A.S.M., Children, and Concerning R.D.G.S. III
Court
Colorado Court of Appeals
Judge
Johnson (appointment info not available)
Date Decided
August 13, 2026
Docket No.
25CA2393
Topics
Dependency and neglect; Deferred adjudication; Hearsay; Child welfare
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Denver Human Services filed a dependency-and-neglect petition alleging that the children’s mother was not properly supervising them. Father entered a no-fault admission to the petition’s allegations.

The parties sought a deferred adjudication as to father. Father objected to a substance-dependence evaluation and asked to substitute five urinalysis screens through his physician; the juvenile court granted that request and deferred adjudication. Four months later, DHS moved to revoke the agreement. Following a contested hearing, the court revoked it and adjudicated the children dependent and neglected.

The Court’s Holding

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Father could not challenge substance monitoring as a deferred-adjudication term because he had requested the urinalysis-screen alternative in the juvenile court.

The division also rejected father’s hearsay arguments. Any error in admitting testimony about prepetition referrals was harmless because the juvenile court’s orders did not indicate reliance on their contents. Testimony that a child’s forensic interview created safety concerns for DHS was permissible expert-opinion testimony under CRE 703, without admission of the child’s underlying statements; in any event, the record did not show the court relied on that interview. The record supported the finding that father was not substantially compliant with significant terms, including family time, a psychological evaluation, and required substance-related services.

Key Takeaways

  • A parent cannot appeal a deferred-adjudication term the parent requested below.
  • An evidentiary error is harmless when the record does not show it influenced the juvenile court’s decision.
  • Failure to comply with significant reunification-related terms can support revocation of a deferred adjudication and a dependency-and-neglect adjudication.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates that appellate challenges to evidence will not warrant reversal absent a showing that the challenged material affected the adjudication. It also underscores the importance of complying with the central terms of a deferred adjudication, even when a parent has satisfied some other requirements.

✉️ 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