Peo in Interest of BJ
Peo in Interest of BJ
Peo in Interest of BJ
Opinion
21CA0306 Peo in Interest of BJ 10-21-2021
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 21CA0306
Jefferson County District Court No. 20JV84
Honorable Ann Gail Meinster, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Appellee,
In the Interest of B.J., a Child,
and Concerning G.J.,
Appellant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Division VII
Opinion by JUDGE GROVE
Navarro and Pawar, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced October 21, 2021
Kimberly Sorrells, County Attorney, Sarah Oviatt, Assistant County Attorney,
Golden, Colorado, for Appellee
Gina G. Bischofs, Guardian Ad Litem
Brad Junge, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Grand Junction, Colorado,
for Appellant
1
¶ 1
In this dependency and neglect proceeding, G.J. (father)
appeals the juvenile court judgment terminating his parent-child
legal relationship with B.J. (the child). We affirm.
I. Background
¶ 2
In February 2020, the Jefferson County Division of Children,
Youth and Families filed a dependency and neglect petition and
assumed temporary custody of the four-month-old child. The
Division asserted that father, the child’s mother, and father’s
seventeen-year-old daughter were all using methamphetamine in
the hotel room that they shared with the child. In addition, the
child had cigarette ashes on her clothing, appeared to be very
hungry, and tested positive for methamphetamine.
¶ 3
The juvenile court initially allowed the child to remain in the
care of mother’s friend and her husband. However, a couple of
months later, the court authorized the Division to move the child to
the home of a paternal cousin and his wife. After the cousin and
his wife were unwilling to continue caring for the child, the Division
placed the child in a foster home.
2
¶ 4
Meanwhile, based on father’s admission, the court adjudicated
the child dependent and neglected. It also adopted a treatment
plan for father.
¶ 5
Later, the Division moved to terminate the legal relationship
between father and the child. Following a hearing in January 2021,
the juvenile court terminated father’s parental rights.
II. Termination Criteria and Standard of Review
¶ 6
The juvenile court may terminate parental rights if it finds, by
clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the child was adjudicated
dependent and neglected; (2) the parent has not complied with an
appropriate, court-approved treatment plan or the plan has not
been successful; (3) the parent is unfit; and (4) the parent’s conduct
or condition is unlikely to change in a reasonable time. § 19-3-
604(1)(c), C.R.S. 2021; People in Interest of C.H., 166 P.3d 288, 289
(Colo. App. 2007).
¶ 7
Whether a juvenile court properly terminated parental rights
presents a mixed question of fact and law because it involves
application of the termination statute to evidentiary facts. People in
Interest of A.M. v. T.M., 2021 CO 14, ¶ 15. A determination of the
proper legal standard to be applied in a case and the application of
3
that standard to the particular facts of the case are questions of law
that we review de novo. M.A.W. v. People in Interest of A.L.W., 2020
CO 11, ¶ 31.
¶ 8
However, we will not disturb the court’s factual findings and
conclusions when they are supported by the record. Id. at ¶ 32; see
also A.M., ¶ 15. Indeed, the credibility of the witnesses as well as
the sufficiency, probative effect, and weight of the evidence, and the
inferences and conclusions to be drawn from it are within the
discretion of the juvenile court. People in Interest of C.A.K., 652
P.2d 603, 613 (Colo. 1982).
III. Less Drastic Alternative
¶ 9
Father contends that the juvenile court erred by rejecting the
less drastic alternative of granting an allocation of parental
responsibilities (APR) to the family friend who initially cared for the
child. In support of his contention, father asserts that the court
declined to hear evidence concerning the APR and failed to make
findings as to whether it was a viable less drastic alternative. He
also argues that the APR would meet the child’s needs and preserve
his bond with the child while allowing him to continue to engage in
substance abuse treatment. We are not persuaded.
4
A. The Legal Framework
¶ 10
When considering termination under section 19-3-604(1)(c),
the court must consider and eliminate less drastic alternatives to
termination. People in Interest of M.M., 726 P.2d 1108, 1122 (Colo.
1986). This determination is implicit in, and thus intertwined with,
the statutory criteria for termination. People in Interest of L.M.,
2018 COA 57M, ¶ 24. As a result, it is influenced by a parent’s
fitness to care for his or her child’s needs. People in Interest of A.R.,
2012 COA 195M, ¶ 38.
¶ 11
And, as with all termination criteria, the court must give
primary consideration to the child’s physical, mental, and emotional
conditions and needs. § 19-3-604(3); A.M., ¶ 20. Thus, the court
may consider whether an ongoing relationship with the parent
would be beneficial or detrimental to the child and the child’s need
for permanency when determining whether there is a viable
alternative to termination. L.M., ¶ 29. Indeed, the primary and
controlling issue in termination proceedings is the determination of
what will serve the child’s interests and welfare. A.M., ¶ 20.
5
B. The Court’s Ruling
¶ 12
To start, father correctly points out that the juvenile court
declined to hear evidence concerning the possibility of an APR to
the family friend. The caseworker testified that the Division had
considered the family friend as a placement option at the beginning
of the case. But, the court did not allow father to ask the
caseworker why the Division was no longer considering an APR to
the family friend and, instead, directed father to raise that issue in
argument.
¶ 13
Father then raised the possibility of granting an APR to the
family friend in his closing argument. Despite father’s argument,
the court did not expressly address an APR to the family friend
when determining that there was no less drastic alternative to
termination.
¶ 14
Even so, we discern no basis for reversal. The less drastic
alternative analysis considers whether any placement, short of
termination, would be in the child’s best interest. A.R., ¶ 44. And,
here, the court determined that an APR would not be an
appropriate alternative to termination because father had no
relationship with the child.
6
C. The Record
¶ 15
The record supports the court’s determination that father had
failed to maintain a relationship with the child. The caseworker
made a referral for father to have parenting time with the child at
the beginning of the case, but father failed to follow through with
that referral. After the caseworker made a second referral, father
did not stay in contact with the agency supervising parenting time.
As a result, father did not see the child until May 2020.
¶ 16
Once father began participating in parenting time — via video
visits — he often failed to engage the child and instead would just
walk around in the background. And father had not attended any
parenting time after the end of June 2020 — more than six months
before the termination hearing.
¶ 17
The record further reveals that father admitted that he had
been using methamphetamine for twenty years and had recently
started using heroin. Although father completed the paperwork to
have an intake appointment for a substance abuse evaluation, he
did not follow through with the appointment. And he did not
otherwise engage in substance abuse treatment. Nor did father
provide any urinalysis tests throughout the case.
7
¶ 18
Finally, the caseworker opined that termination was in the
child’s best interests. She explained that the child was very young
and needed the stability of a permanent home. The caseworker also
testified that the child would not benefit from having an ongoing
relationship with father.
¶ 19
Given this record, we will not disturb the court’s determination
that there was no less drastic alternative to termination.
IV. Conclusion
¶ 20
The judgment is affirmed.
JUDGE NAVARRO and JUDGE PAWAR concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.