People in Interest of ADH

24CA0583 Peo in Interest of ADH 03-06-2025

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 24CA0583
Arapahoe County District Court No. 23JV16
Honorable Victoria Ellen Klingensmith, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Appellee,

In the Interest of A.D.H. a Child,

and Concerning D.H.,

Appellant,

and C.B.,

Appellee.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division A
Opinion by CHIEF JUDGE ROMÁN
Martinez* and Graham*, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced March 6, 2025

Ronald Carl, County Attorney, Sarah Simchowitz, Assistant County Attorney,
Aurora, Colorado, for Appellee

Alison A. Bettenberg, Guardian Ad Litem

The Morgan Law Office, Kristofr P. Morgan, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for
Appellant D.H.

Lindsey Parlin, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for
Appellee C.B.
*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art.
VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2024.
¶1 In February 2024, the juvenile court, as part of this

dependency and neglect proceeding, had to decide between three

competing claims of parentage for A.D.H. (the child). The court

determined that the biological father was the child’s legal parent,

and the mother’s former girlfriend appealed. We affirm.

I. Relevant Facts

¶2 In 2017, S.V. (mother) and J.V. (wife) married.

¶3 In late 2021, during the couple’s separation, mother lived in

Alabama at the home of C.B. (father) and his spouse. Mother and

father had a sexual encounter, which led to her pregnancy.

¶4 After three months in Alabama, father drove mother to

Colorado. A short time later, she began dating D.H. (girlfriend).

¶5 On August 25, 2022, mother, with girlfriend present, gave

birth to the child.

¶6 In October, girlfriend completed a drug rehabilitation program

and later entered a sober living facility. Then, mother, girlfriend,

and the child moved into a new apartment together.

¶7 In January 2023, the Arapahoe County Department of Human

Services filed a petition in dependency and neglect regarding the

child. The petition named mother as a respondent, and girlfriend

1
as a special respondent because she was living with mother and the

child; it did not identify father, instead listing a “John Doe.” The

Department alleged that (1) mother had an outstanding warrant for

non-compliance with probation, stemming from a charge of

possession of a controlled substance; (2) girlfriend, who had a

history of significant drug use and a lengthy criminal history,

violated probation by testing positive for methamphetamine and

fentanyl; and (3) mother and girlfriend were trafficking drugs and

assaulted an individual at their apartment. The Department placed

the child with maternal grandmother.

¶8 In August, due to mother’s marriage to wife and the possibility

of father’s parentage, the Department amended the petition to

include them both.

¶9 On February 9, 2024, the juvenile court held an evidentiary

hearing on the issue of the child’s parentage. By this time,

girlfriend and mother had broken up, and mother and wife were

working on their marriage. Girlfriend, then incarcerated,

participated by phone.

¶ 10 The court recognized that there were three competing

presumptions of parentage under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA)

2
and, after considering the factors in section 19-4-105(2)(a), C.R.S.

2024, plus the child’s best interests, the court named father the

child’s legal parent.

¶ 11 Girlfriend now appeals.

II. Parentage Determination

¶ 12 Girlfriend contends that the juvenile court erred by not

designating her the child’s legal parent. We disagree.

¶ 13 A juvenile court may determine a child’s parentage as part of a

dependency and neglect proceeding. People in Interest of J.G.C.,

2013 COA 171, ¶ 10. When a parentage issue arises in such a

proceeding, the court must follow the UPA. See People in Interest of

O.S-H., 2021 COA 130, ¶ 40.

¶ 14 Under the UPA, parentage is not limited to persons with a

biological connection to the child. In re Parental Responsibilities

Concerning A.R.L., 2013 COA 170, ¶ 19. Instead, the juvenile court

must first determine whether one of the statutory presumptions of

parentage outlined in section 19-4-105(1) applies. People in Interest

of C.L.S., 313 P.3d 662, 666 (Colo. App. 2011). In this context, a

person is considered a presumed parent if (1) the person and the

child’s natural parent are or have been married to each other and

3
the child is born during the marriage; (2) the person “receives the

child into the person’s home and openly holds out the child as the

person’s natural child”; or (3) genetic testing shows the person

cannot be excluded as the likely biological parent and “the

probability of the person’s genetic parentage is ninety-seven percent

or higher.” § 19-4-105(1)(a), (d), (f).

¶ 15 If a presumption is established, parties may rebut it by clear

and convincing evidence. § 19-4-105(2)(a); J.G.C., ¶ 21. But like

here, when two or more conflicting presumptions arise, and none

has been overcome by clear and convincing evidence, the

presumption founded on the weightier considerations of policy and

logic control. See § 19-4-105(2)(a); People in Interest of K.L.W., 2021

COA 56, ¶ 70. To that end, the juvenile court must consider the

following factors:

(I) The length of time between the proceeding
to determine parentage and the time that the
presumed parent was placed on notice that the
presumed parent might not be the genetic
parent, unless the child was conceived through
an assisted reproductive procedure;

(II) The length of time during which the
presumed parent has assumed the role of the
child’s parent;

4
(III) The facts surrounding the presumed
parent’s discovery of the possibility that the
presumed parent was not a genetic parent,
unless the child was conceived through an
assisted reproductive procedure;

(IV) The nature of the existing parent-child
relationship;

(V) The child’s age;

(VI) The child’s relationship to any presumed
parent or parents;

(VII) The extent to which the passage of time
reduces the chances of establishing another
person’s parentage and a child support
obligation in favor of the child; and

(VIII) Any other factors that may affect the
equities arising from the disruption of the
parent-child relationship between the child
and the presumed parent or parents or the
chance of other harm to the child.

19-4-105(2)(a). The court, however, is not limited to those factors.

See K.L.W., ¶¶ 51-52.

¶ 16 This inquiry is fact intensive, and the juvenile court must

focus on the child’s best interests and not the rights of, or the

fairness to, each of the presumptive parents. K.L.W., ¶ 50; see

A.R.L., ¶ 18 (“[A]t the heart of any parentage decision is the child’s

best interests.”).

5
¶ 17 We review for abuse of discretion the juvenile court’s fact-

intensive process of weighing the UPA factors and the child’s best

interests to determine which parentage presumption should control.

See W.C. in Interest of A.M.K., 907 P.2d 719, 722-23 (Colo. App.

1995); see also N.A.H. v. S.L.S., 9 P.3d 354, 362-66 (Colo. 2000);

K.L.W., ¶¶ 41, 51-52. A court abuses its discretion when its

decision is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. See W.C.,

907 P.2d at 723. We review factual findings for clear error,

meaning we will not disturb them if they are supported by the

record. K.L.W., ¶ 42.

¶ 18 Once the juvenile court finds that a person with a

presumption of parentage is the child’s legal parent, the other

person with the competing presumption of parentage becomes a

nonparent with no rights or responsibilities regarding the child.

K.L.W., ¶ 21.

¶ 19 Here, the juvenile court recognized that there were three

competing presumptions of parentage: (1) wife, who was married to

mother at the time the child was born; (2) girlfriend, who accepted

the child into her home and held the child out as her own; and (3)

father, whose DNA test results confirmed a 99.99% probability of

6
parentage. See § 19-4-105(1)(a), (d), (f). The court determined that

none of the three presumptions had been rebutted by clear and

convincing evidence. See § 19-4-105(2)(a).

¶ 20 In determining which presumption should control based on

the weightier considerations of policy and logic under section 19-4-

105(2)(a), the court made the following findings:

• From the moment mother learned of her pregnancy, all

parties were on notice.

• Wife did not assume a parental role in the same way as

girlfriend and father.

• Girlfriend was heavily involved throughout mother’s

pregnancy. She attended mother’s prenatal

appointments, was present at the child’s birth, and

assumed a parental role thereafter. She did not miss any

family time visits, and a bond had formed between her

and the child.

• Father assisted mother with early medical appointments,

drove her back to Colorado, and maintained contact

throughout the pregnancy. While not as involved in the

child’s day-to-day care as girlfriend, he too assumed the

7
role of a parent. He strongly asserted that he was the

child’s father and expressed a clear desire to build a

relationship with the child. Once the DNA test results

confirmed his biological parentage, father visited the

child several times in Colorado.

• The child was eighteen months old at the time of the

hearing and had developed relationships with all three

presumptive parents.

• Mother did not disclose to the Department that father

was the child’s biological parent. His name surfaced in

July 2023, only after a disagreement between mother and

maternal grandmother during a Department visit. The

caseworker testified that mother, at that time, “was not

happy to get [him] involved in this proceeding.”

Withholding that critical information hindered father’s

involvement with the child, thereby affecting the child’s

best interests. That fact — including his assertion of

parentage and engagement in the child’s life since birth

— and considered in conjunction with public policy and

8
principles of equity, supported his claim of legal

parentage.

• Father and his spouse have a home in Alabama with a

bedroom prepared for the child; and father, who is

gainfully employed, was ready and willing to parent and

financially support the child.

¶ 21 The juvenile court determined that designating father the

child’s legal parent would best serve the child’s interests. The court

acknowledged that girlfriend had formed a bond with the child, but

it found that father’s consistent assertion of parentage, the

withholding of this information, and his eventual involvement

outweighed girlfriend’s competing presumption.

¶ 22 Because the juvenile court considered the relevant statutory

factors along with the child’s best interests, and made the

necessary findings, which have record support, we discern no abuse

of discretion in granting father the status of legal parent. See W.C.,

907 P.2d at 722-23; see also N.A.H., 9 P.3d at 362-66; K.L.W.,

¶¶ 41, 51-52.

¶ 23 Still, girlfriend argues that the juvenile court gave “little

consideration” to the child’s best interests. She states that she was

9
the only presumed parent who had developed a loving and bonded

relationship with the child, acting in a parental capacity during the

pregnancy, after the birth, and during the pendency of the case.

She adds that her family time with the child “went very well.” But

her argument essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence, which we

cannot do. See K.L.W., ¶ 62 (it is not the appellate court’s role to

reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the

juvenile court); see also People in Interest of A.M. v. T.M., 2021 CO

14, ¶ 15 (it is for the juvenile court to determine witness credibility

and the weight, probative force, and sufficiency of the evidence, as

well as the inferences and conclusions to be drawn therefrom);

N.A.H., 9 P.3d at 365 (the district court is accorded “significant

deference” in determining a child’s best interests relative to a

parentage determination).

III. Disposition

¶ 24 The judgment is affirmed.

JUSTICE MARTINEZ and JUDGE GRAHAM concur.

10