Peo in Interest of JJL

25CA1109 Peo in Interest of JJL 12-31-2025

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 25CA1109
City and County of Denver Juvenile Court No. 23JV30285
Honorable Elizabeth McCarthy, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Appellee,

In the Interest of J.J.L., a Child,

and Concerning V.A.L. a/k/a V.A.B.,

Appellant.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division IV
Opinion by JUDGE SCHOCK
Harris and Johnson, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced December 31, 2025

Miko Brown, City Attorney, Christina R. Kinsella, Assistant City Attorney,
Denver, Colorado, for Appellee

Josi McCauley, Guardian Ad Litem

Michael Kovaka, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Littleton, Colorado, for
Appellant
¶1 V.A.L. (mother) appeals the judgment terminating her parent-

child relationship with J.J.L. (the child). She contends that the

juvenile court erred by determining that she was not fit and not

likely to become fit within a reasonable period of time. We affirm.

I. Background

¶2 The Denver Department of Human Services (the Department)

filed a petition in dependency and neglect based on concerns about

domestic violence and mother’s substance dependence.

¶3 The juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent or

neglected and entered a treatment plan for both parents. About a

year later, the Department moved to terminate both parents’

parental rights. But because mother was making progress toward

establishing sobriety, the Department withdrew the motion.

¶4 A month later, the child’s guardian ad litem moved to

terminate mother’s (and father’s) parental rights. After a four-day

hearing, the juvenile court terminated both parents’ parental rights,

concluding, as relevant here, that mother was not fit to parent the

child and was not likely to become fit within a reasonable time.

1
II. Fitness

¶5 Mother contends that the juvenile court erred by finding that

she was an unfit parent and was unlikely to become a fit parent

within a reasonable period of time. We disagree.

A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review

¶6 To terminate a parent-child legal relationship, the juvenile

court must find by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the child

has been adjudicated dependent and neglected; (2) the parent has

not reasonably 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

within a reasonable time. § 19-3-604(1)(c), C.R.S. 2025.

¶7 A parent is unfit if their conduct or condition renders them

unable or unwilling to give their child reasonable parental care.

People in Interest of D.P., 160 P.3d 351, 353 (Colo. App. 2007).

Reasonable parental care requires, at a minimum, that the parent

provide nurturing and safe parenting sufficiently adequate to meet

the child’s physical, emotional, and mental needs and conditions.

People in Interest of A.J., 143 P.3d 1143, 1152 (Colo. App. 2006).

2
¶8 When deciding whether a parent’s conduct or condition is

likely to change within a reasonable time, the juvenile court may

consider whether any change has occurred during the proceeding,

the parent’s social history, and the chronic or long-term nature of

the parent’s conduct or condition. People in Interest of S.Z.S., 2022

COA 133, ¶ 24. What constitutes a reasonable time is fact-specific

and must be determined by considering the physical, mental, and

emotional conditions and needs of the child. Id. at ¶ 25.

¶9 But a “reasonable time” is not an indefinite time. Id. And

even when a parent has made progress on a treatment plan, the

court is not required to give the parent additional time to become

fit. See id. at ¶¶ 24-25. In addition, when, as in this case, the child

is under six years old when the petition is filed, the action is subject

to the expedited permanency planning provisions and the court

must place the children in a permanent home as expeditiously as

possible. See id. at ¶ 25; §§ 19-1-102(1.6), 19-1-123, C.R.S. 2025.

¶ 10 Whether the juvenile court properly terminated parental rights

is a mixed question of fact and law. People in Interest of A.M. v.

T.M., 2021 CO 14, ¶ 15. We review the court’s factual findings for

3
clear error, but we review de novo its legal conclusions based on

those facts. People in Interest of S.R.N.J-S., 2020 COA 12, ¶ 10.

B. Analysis

¶ 11 The juvenile court found that mother was unfit, in that she

was “unable or unwilling to offer nurturing and safe parenting

adequate to meet [the child’s] needs.” In so finding, the court

recognized that, at times during the two-year case, mother had

shown sobriety and “worked diligently” on components of her

treatment plan. But at the time of the termination hearing, mother

was no longer in compliance with the objectives of the plan.

¶ 12 The court found that mother had relapsed in the months

before the termination hearing, twice testing positive for ingestion of

fentanyl and testing positive in a fingernail test for environmental

exposure to methamphetamine, methadone, and fentanyl. The

court also found that mother’s behaviors during recent parenting

time sessions with the child were indicative of substance abuse and

that mother’s claims of sobriety despite the positive tests were not

credible. Although the court noted that a relapse is not itself a

complete failure of the treatment plan, mother’s “denial or

minimization . . . and really the lack of curiosity or concern for” the

4
possible impacts of an accidental exposure to fentanyl on the child

left the court with no path forward for mother’s rehabilitation.

¶ 13 The record supports these findings. Two experts in forensic

toxicology testified that the confirmation testing performed on

mother’s urinalysis and fingernail samples eliminated the

possibility of false positives. The experts testified that (1) fentanyl

was definitively present in two of mother’s urinalysis samples due to

ingestion; and (2) methamphetamine, methadone, and fentanyl

were present in mother’s fingernails due to mother being

“consistently in an environment where drugs are being used or

manufactured.” When mother’s counsel suggested that mother may

have been exposed to substances at substance testing facilities or

through her work at a pharmacy, both experts testified that positive

results due to these circumstances were “highly unlikely.”

¶ 14 Moreover, several family time supervisors testified that they

were concerned that mother was under the influence of substances

during family time with the child. One supervisor described mother

alternating between rapidly speaking and falling asleep “almost

mid-sentence” in a visit the week before the termination hearing.

Another described mother’s behavior at a family time session a few

5
days later, where mother was irritable and cursing, and “appeared

not with it . . . slurring her words and . . . somewhat unintelligible.”

Although mother’s demeanor improved at times during the visit, she

twice went to the restroom and returned “slurring and becoming

sort of unintelligible again.” A third family time supervisor

described mother berating the child a few weeks before the hearing.

And the caseworker testified that, after the positive urinalysis test,

mother became more confrontational and argumentative —

behaviors she historically displayed during times of relapse.

¶ 15 In addition to the recent relapse and concerns with family

time, the caseworker testified that mother was not in compliance

with other requirements of her treatment plan. For example, the

caseworker opined that mother had not demonstrated protective

capabilities or maintained boundaries with father, as required by

the domestic violence objective. Indeed, mother had recently denied

ever having been involved in domestic violence, notwithstanding her

earlier disclosures to the contrary. The caseworker also testified

that mother was not participating in the child’s speech language

therapy, as required to meet the child’s needs, and that mother was

6
not successful with her mental health objective because she had

not shown behavioral changes or accepted accountability.

¶ 16 The record also supports the juvenile court’s finding that

mother conduct or condition was unlikely to change within a

reasonable time. The court found that despite making “a lot of

progress,” mother “is still not a safe and sober parent.” It found

that mother’s “hostility and rejection of the positive tests and her

unwillingness to acknowledge the relapse and get into a higher level

of treatment” made it unlikely that mother would become fit within

a reasonable period of time. And it found that although mother had

successfully demonstrated sobriety at times, there was “a pattern of

relapse,” and the child “cannot wait for another six months or

another year or another two years to have a safe and sober parent.”

¶ 17 Again, these findings are supported by the record. Mother’s

providers and the caseworker agreed that, at times, mother engaged

in treatment and demonstrated periods of sobriety and positive

interactions with the child. But the recent positive substance tests

and mother’s behavior since those tests presented a significant

barrier. Mother’s therapist testified that she gave mother referrals

for detox and inpatient substance dependence treatment, but

7
mother declined the referrals and said she would not attend

inpatient treatment. And when the caseworker tried to talk to

mother about how the exposure occurred or the reasons for her

relapse, mother refused. Mother also refused to provide further

substance testing to reestablish sobriety. The caseworker testified

that, although relapse can be a regular part of substance

dependence treatment, mother showed no accountability for the

positive tests and was adamant that she had not relapsed.

¶ 18 The caseworker explained that mother’s recent demeanor and

behavior were consistent with the pattern she had displayed

throughout the case — with a period of strong engagement followed

by a period of relapse and disengagement. Two years after the

petition was filed, mother remained trapped in that same pattern.

¶ 19 We therefore conclude that the record supports the juvenile

court’s factual findings and its conclusion that mother was unfit

and unlikely to become fit within a reasonable period of time.

III. Disposition

¶ 20 The judgment is affirmed.

JUDGE HARRIS and JUDGE JOHNSON concur.

8