Interest of Huckabee

24CA1251 Interest of Huckabee 04-24-2025

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 24CA1251
Arapahoe County District Court No. 12PR639
Honorable Megan Brewer, Magistrate

In the Interest of Kevin Huckabee, Ward,

Helena Huckabee,

Appellant,

v.

Paul Huckabee,

Appellee.

ORDER AFFIRMED

Division III
Opinion by JUDGE MEIRINK
Dunn and Tow, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced April 24, 2025

Wade Ash LLC, Zachary D. Schlichting, Greenwood Village, Colorado, for
Appellant

Lathrop GPM LLP, Thomas A. Rodriguez, Casey C. Breese, Denver, Colorado,
for Appellee
¶1 Helena Huckabee (Dr. Huckabee) appeals the district court’s

order appointing Human Network Services, Inc. (HNS) as her son’s

successor guardian. We affirm.

I. Background

¶2 Kevin Huckabee is Dr. Huckabee’s adult son. He has been

diagnosed with autism, mitochondrial disorder, and a Parkinson’s

like movement disorder, which impairs his mobility and severely

limits his communication. Kevin requires constant support from

caregivers and extensive medical and behavioral treatment, which

are funded through Medicaid benefits and the State’s

Developmental Disabilities Waiver (disabilities waiver).

¶3 Paul Huckabee (Mr. Huckabee) is Kevin’s father. He and Dr.

Huckabee were married and have served as Kevin’s co-guardians

since 2012. In 2019, the couple divorced but agreed to a joint

parenting and guardianship plan for Kevin.

¶4 Dr. Huckabee is a pediatric neuropsychologist who owns

Emerge Professionals (Emerge). Emerge is a company that offers

behavioral therapy and counseling services for people with

developmental disabilities. Emerge provided Kevin with applied

1
behavioral analysis, through his disabilities waiver, for over a

decade.

¶5 In 2022, Dr. Huckabee informed Mr. Huckabee that Emerge

would no longer accept Medicaid billing and would only accept

private payment. Despite requests from Mr. Huckabee to consider

supplemental behavioral analysis for Kevin covered by his

disabilities waiver funds, members of Kevin’s care team indicated

that Dr. Huckabee refused to consider any services outside of

Emerge.

¶6 In early 2023, Dr. Huckabee sought to exert sole authority

over Kevin’s care and petitioned the district court to remove Mr.

Huckabee as Kevin’s co-guardian. Eventually, Dr. Huckabee

withdrew her petition after she and Mr. Huckabee entered into a

settlement agreement in April 2023. As part of the settlement

terms, they agreed to the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL)

to act on Kevin’s behalf and to help resolve disagreements between

them.

¶7 Dr. and Mr. Huckabee continued to disagree and decided it

would be in Kevin’s best interests to appoint a temporary substitute

guardian. The parties stipulated to HNS’s appointment as

2
temporary substitute guardian in October 2023. Around that time,

Dr. and Mr. Huckabee also agreed that Kevin should be placed in a

host home. The GAL reported that Dr. Huckabee maintained an

adversarial relationship with HNS regarding Kevin’s care.

¶8 In February 2024, Mr. Huckabee filed a petition to remove Dr.

Huckabee as a co-guardian for cause under section 15-10-503(3),

C.R.S. 2024, contending that Dr. Huckabee had “consistently

violated her fiduciary duties to act in Kevin’s best interests.” In

March 2024, Mr. Huckabee filed a separate petition to appoint HNS

as successor guardian. As part of the petition, Mr. Huckabee

tendered his resignation as co-guardian contingent upon Dr.

Huckabee’s removal and HNS’s appointment as successor guardian.

Dr. Huckabee objected to the petition to remove her as co-guardian,

but she did not object to the petition to appoint HNS as successor

guardian.

¶9 Around the same time, the GAL filed a motion to extend HNS’s

temporary substitute guardianship, which was approaching its six-

month end, arguing exigent circumstances allowed the court to

extend the appointment. Dr. Huckabee objected, arguing that,

under section 15-14-313, C.R.S. 2024, a temporary substitute

3
guardian may only be appointed for a specified period, not to exceed

six months. In her objection, Dr. Huckabee also alleged that the

current restrictions on visitation, communication, and access to

experiences violated Kevin’s rights “under Title 25.5, Article 10, Part

2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.”1 Dr. Huckabee did not explain

how any alleged rights restrictions on Kevin impacted the court’s

legal authority to extend HNS’s appointment beyond six months.

The court agreed with the GAL that an emergency existed and that

it was appropriate to extend HNS’s temporary substitute

guardianship under section 15-10-503(1).2

¶ 10 A few months later, the district court held a two-day

evidentiary hearing to determine whether there was good cause to

remove Dr. Huckabee as a co-guardian, accept Mr. Huckabee’s

resignation as co-guardian, and appoint HNS as successor

guardian. The court made oral findings that it was in Kevin’s best

interests to remove Dr. Huckabee as co-guardian and that there

1 This section governs community living services that support

persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

2 The court did not address or mention Dr. Huckabee’s allegations

related to title 25.5.

4
was “good cause to appoint” HNS. It found that Dr. Huckabee

made inconsistent decisions that created a conflict of interest and

that her refusal to consider alternate providers and collaborate with

Kevin’s care team was not in Kevin’s best interest. The court,

therefore, granted both of Mr. Huckabee’s petitions: it removed

Dr. Huckabee as co-guardian and appointed HNS as successor

guardian after approving Mr. Huckabee’s resignation as co-

guardian.

¶ 11 Dr. Huckabee appeals only the order appointing HNS as

successor guardian.

II. Analysis

¶ 12 On appeal, Dr. Huckabee argues that the district court failed

to properly apply section 15-14-310, C.R.S. 2024, when it

appointed HNS as successor guardian without good cause.

Specifically, she contends that the court failed to make the

necessary findings and holdings when there were allegations that

HNS violated title 25.5, article 10, part 2 while acting as Kevin’s

temporary substitute guardian and, as a professional fiduciary,

HNS lacked statutory priority for appointment over a family

member.

5
¶ 13 Dr. Huckabee’s argument is unpreserved.

¶ 14 Parties are not required to use “talismanic language” to

preserve a particular argument on appeal, but a claim is preserved

if the trial court was presented with “an adequate opportunity to

make findings of fact and conclusions of law” on the issue. Cuevas

v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo., 2023 COA 64M ¶ 35 n.3 (quoting People v.

Melendez, 102 P.3d 315, 322 (Colo. 2004)) (cert. granted July 1,

2024). The purpose of this requirement is “to permit the trial court

to accurately evaluate the legal issues.” Uptain v. Huntington Lab,

Inc., 723 P.2d 1322, 1330 (Colo. 1986).

¶ 15 While Dr. Huckabee objected to Mr. Huckabee’s petition to

remove her as co-guardian, she did not object, or even respond, to

the petition to appoint HNS as successor guardian, nor did she

propose alternative candidates to HNS.

¶ 16 We are unpersuaded by Dr. Huckabee’s contention that she

preserved her argument to challenge HNS’s appointment because

she raised title 25.5 during opening and closing statements and in

her opposition to extend HNS’s temporary substitute guardianship.

While Dr. Huckabee generally noted at the evidentiary hearing that

“[HNS] must act according to Title 25.5, article 10, part 2,” she

6
failed to present the specific argument she asks us to consider: that

the district court was required to make factual findings regarding

the allegations that HNS violated title 25.5 during the temporary

substitute guardianship before it could appoint HNS as successor

guardian under section 15-14-310(3). Similarly, although Dr.

Huckabee’s objection to extend HNS’s temporary substitute

guardianship indicated that the “current restrictions on visitation,

communication, and access to valued experiences violate[d]

[Kevin]’s rights under Title 25.5,” her argument focused on HNS’s

alleged failure to follow the procedural requirements set forth in

title 25.5 before modifying or restricting Kevin’s support plan.3

Again, the argument Dr. Huckabee raised in her objection is not the

one she now raises on appeal.

¶ 17 Because the district court was not presented with the

opportunity to consider the issue, it was unpreserved and we will

3 In response to Dr. Huckabee’s argument, the GAL acknowledged

that HNS had “put visitation parameters in place to ensure Kevin’s
safety” but clarified that any “restrictions” were not being imposed
on Kevin but on Dr. Huckabee because of “her continued
inappropriate behavior as documented by multiple independent
sources, and it[]s resulting impact on Kevin.”

7
not consider it for the first time on appeal.4 Madalena v. Zurich Am.

Ins. Co., 2023 COA 32, ¶ 50 (“It is axiomatic that in civil cases,

issues not raised in or decided by the trial court generally will not

be addressed for the first time on appeal.” (quoting Brown v. Am.

Standard Ins. Co. of Wis., 2019 COA 11, ¶ 21)).

III. Disposition

¶ 18 The district court’s order is affirmed

JUDGE DUNN and JUDGE TOW concur.

4 For the same reason, we will not consider Dr. Huckabee’s

argument that the district court failed to follow the rules for priority
under section 15-14-310, C.R.S. 2024, when it appointed HNS as
successor guardian.

8