Background
Denver Human Services filed a dependency-and-neglect petition three weeks after M.L.J.’s birth, principally over the parents’ substance use. Mother admitted methamphetamine use during pregnancy and later tested positive; father tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl. The child was removed from mother’s care and placed with paternal relatives.
Both parents entered no-fault admissions, and the juvenile court adopted treatment plans. About a year later, the Department moved to terminate parental rights. Following a three-day hearing, the juvenile court terminated both parents’ legal relationships with the child.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the record supported the juvenile court’s conclusion that the Department made reasonable efforts and reasonable ADA accommodations for mother. The Department explored disability-appropriate treatment resources, supported life-skills and other services, and mother’s delayed psychological evaluation was not attributable to the Department. Mother also failed to make a prima facie showing that any claimed deficiencies by counsel prejudiced the outcome.
The court further held that evidence supported the findings that father had not sufficiently complied with his treatment plan, remained unfit, and was unlikely to become fit within a reasonable time because of inconsistent family time and unresolved substance-use concerns. The juvenile court also properly rejected allocation of parental responsibilities as a less drastic alternative because adoption best served the child’s need for permanency.
Key Takeaways
- A department must reasonably accommodate known parental disabilities, but a parent must timely disclose disabilities and identify needed modifications.
- An ineffective-assistance claim fails without a prima facie showing that counsel’s alleged errors likely changed the termination result.
- Substantial progress on parts of a treatment plan does not preclude termination where record evidence supports continuing unfitness and a need for adoption-based permanence.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that ADA-related reunification obligations are fact-specific and turn on the department’s knowledge of the disability, the accommodations actually pursued, and the parent’s participation in services. It also confirms that appellate courts will not reweigh evidence supporting treatment-plan noncompliance, parental unfitness, or the rejection of alternatives to termination.