People in Interest of A.F.

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions
constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by
the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be
cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division.
Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion
should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.

SUMMARY
September 4, 2025

2025COA76

No. 25CA0033, People in Interest of A.F. — Family Law —
Dependency and Neglect — Caseworker Expert Testimony;
Evidence — Testimony by Experts — Shreck Findings —
Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice,
Confusion, or Waste of Time

A division of the court of appeals clarifies that caseworker

expert testimony in dependency and neglect proceedings is subject

to CRE 702 and the analysis outlined in People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d

68 (Colo. 2001), including the requirement of specific findings as to

admissibility. Thus, when a parent objects to the admissibility of

caseworker expert testimony under CRE 702, the juvenile court

must, before admitting such testimony, make specific findings

regarding (1) the reliability of the principles upon which the

testimony is based; (2) the qualifications of the witnesses; (3) the

usefulness of the testimony; and (4) the CRE 403 balancing test.

Because the juvenile court did not do so in this case and its error
was not harmless, the division reverses the dependency or neglect

adjudication and remands the case for a new adjudicatory trial.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2025COA76

Court of Appeals No. 25CA0033
Arapahoe County District Court No. 23JV455
Honorable Shay K. Whitaker, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Appellee,

In the Interest of A.F., a Child,

and Concerning C.A., a/k/a C.K.,

Appellant.

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Division III
Opinion by JUDGE SCHOCK
Dunn and Brown, JJ., concur

Announced September 4, 2025

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

Sheena Knight, Guardian Ad Litem

Patrick R. Henson, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Chelsea A. Carr,
Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant
¶1 C.A. (mother), a/k/a C.K., appeals the order adjudicating A.F.

(the child) dependent or neglected. She argues, among other

things, that the juvenile court erred by admitting expert testimony

from three caseworkers without making the findings required by

People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68 (Colo. 2001). Because we agree, we

reverse the adjudication, vacate the corresponding dispositional

order, and remand the case for a new adjudicatory trial.

¶2 In doing so, we clarify that CRE 702 and Shreck — including

the required findings — apply to caseworker expert testimony in

dependency and neglect proceedings, just as they do to any other

expert testimony. Thus, when a parent properly objects to the

admissibility of such testimony, the juvenile court must make

findings regarding the reliability of the underlying principles, the

qualifications of the witness, the usefulness of the testimony, and

the considerations in CRE 403. See Shreck, 22 P.3d at 70.

I. Background

¶3 The Arapahoe County Department of Human Services (the

Department) filed a petition in dependency or neglect based on

concerns about mother’s substance use and erratic behavior toward

caseworkers and law enforcement. The petition alleged that the

1
child lacked proper parental care and was in an injurious

environment. Mother requested an adjudicatory jury trial.

¶4 Before trial, mother moved to exclude expert testimony from

Department caseworkers as unreliable, unhelpful, and unduly

prejudicial. Alternatively, she requested a Shreck hearing and

specific findings concerning the reliability and relevance of the

proposed expert opinions. Among other things, mother argued that

the proposed testimony — particularly regarding child safety and

the implications of parent distrust of caseworkers — did not rest on

the application of objective and reasonably reliable principles.

¶5 At a pretrial conference, the juvenile court denied mother’s

request for a hearing, noting that the challenged testimony did not

concern “scientific evidence,” as it did in Shreck. The court

acknowledged that it “would still need to make findings that the

evidence [was] reliable, relevant, and not unfairly prejudicial.” But

it declined to make those findings before trial. Instead, it elected to

“defer” that determination until trial when the witnesses would be

tendered as experts and mother’s counsel could conduct voir dire.

¶6 At a second pretrial conference, mother’s counsel reminded

the court that it had not made a pretrial finding as to the

2
admissibility of the caseworker expert testimony and that it would

need to do so when the caseworkers were offered as experts at trial.

¶7 At trial, the Department offered three caseworkers — the

intake caseworker, the ongoing caseworker, and a caseworker from

the child’s prior dependency and neglect action — as experts in

“casework with an emphasis in child protection.” For each witness,

mother’s counsel, father’s counsel,1 or both conducted a similar voir

dire that included questions about the witness’s training, what

“objective modality” they used to determine if a child was in danger,

and whether their processes had been the subject of published

research, testing, or peer review. Mother objected to each witness

under CRE 702. The juvenile court overruled mother’s objections,

each time saying only that it would “qualify [the witness] as an

expert in casework with an emphasis in child protection.”

¶8 The caseworkers testified to their opinions on several matters,

including that (1) the child was not or would not be in a safe

environment with mother; (2) the child displayed unusual behavior

during her removal; (3) father lacked the protective capacity to keep

1 The child’s father was also named in the Department’s petition,

and the adjudicatory trial concerned both mother and father.

3
the child safe if mother was using substances; and (4) returning the

child to her parents’ care risked her physical and emotional safety.

¶9 The jury returned special verdicts finding that the child’s

environment was injurious to her welfare and that the child lacked

proper parental care through the actions or omissions of mother.

See § 19-3-102(1)(b), (c), C.R.S. 2025. The juvenile court entered an

order adjudicating the child dependent or neglected. It then

entered a dispositional order adopting a treatment plan for mother.

II. Analysis

¶ 10 Mother argues that the juvenile court erred by denying her

request for a Shreck hearing on the admissibility of the caseworkers’

expert testimony and by failing to make the required findings before

admitting that testimony. We conclude that although the court was

not necessarily required to hold a hearing, it erred by admitting the

testimony without making the specific findings required by CRE

702 and Shreck. Because this error was not harmless, we reverse

the adjudication and remand the case to the juvenile court.

A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review

¶ 11 The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by CRE 702

and CRE 403. Kutzly v. People, 2019 CO 55, ¶ 10; Ruibal v. People,

4
2018 CO 93, ¶ 12. To be admissible, the testimony must be reliable

and relevant, and its probative value must not be “substantially

outweighed by any of the countervailing considerations contained in

CRE 403.” Kutzly, ¶ 10; see Shreck, 22 P.3d at 70, 77-78.

¶ 12 To ensure “meaningful review of this broadly discretionary

decision,” a trial court must make “specific findings” as to (1) the

reliability of the principles upon which the expert testimony is

based; (2) the qualifications of the witnesses; (3) the usefulness of

the testimony to the jury; and (4) the balancing required by CRE

403. Ruibal, ¶¶ 12, 14; see Shreck, 22 P.3d at 70. The court may

hold a pretrial evidentiary hearing — often called a Shreck hearing

— to assist in making these determinations. Kutzly, ¶ 11. But it

need not hold a hearing if there is sufficient information in the

record to make an admissibility determination without one. Id.

¶ 13 We review a juvenile court’s admission of expert testimony for

an abuse of discretion. People in Interest of M.W., 140 P.3d 231,

233 (Colo. App. 2006). When a party objects to expert testimony

under CRE 702, a court abuses its discretion by admitting the

testimony without specific findings “unless the record not only

supports admission of the contested testimony, but virtually

5
requires it, or if Colorado has already properly accepted the basis of

the expert’s testimony.” Kutzly, ¶ 11; see also Ruibal, ¶ 14.2

B. Shreck and CRE 702 Apply to Caseworker Expert Testimony

¶ 14 We first reject the guardian ad litem (GAL) and Department’s

claim that Shreck does not apply to caseworker testimony because

such testimony is based on nonscientific “specialized knowledge.”

¶ 15 Shreck held that the CRE 702 standard that already applied to

“experience-based specialized knowledge” expert testimony also

applies to scientific expert testimony. 22 P.3d at 70, 75-77; see

also Brooks v. People, 975 P.2d 1105, 1114 (Colo. 1999) (applying

CRE 702 to “experience-based specialized knowledge”); Ruibal, ¶ 12

(noting that Shreck extended the supreme court’s prior holdings

concerning “experience-based specialized knowledge” (quoting

Brooks, 975 P.2d at 1114)). It then elaborated on how that

standard should be applied. Shreck, 22 P.3d at 77-79. In doing so,

it did not limit that application to scientific evidence. See id.

2 When no party objects to the expert testimony, a lack of findings

does not necessarily render it inadmissible. People v. Martinez,
2024 CO 69, ¶ 36. In this case, however, mother raised detailed
and specific objections as to each prong of the Shreck analysis.

6
¶ 16 To the contrary, the supreme court has made clear that Shreck

and CRE 702 “govern[] the admissibility of all expert testimony in

Colorado, including experience-based expert testimony.” Kutzly,

¶ 10 (emphasis added); see also People v. Douglas, 2015 COA 155,

¶ 75 (“In all cases, even where expertise is based on experience

alone, the trial court must maintain its role as a gatekeeper to

ensure that ‘specialized testimony is reliable, relevant, and helpful

to the jury.’” (citation omitted)). That includes expert testimony

offered by department of human services caseworkers.

¶ 17 It is true that some of the potential considerations identified in

Shreck are a better fit for scientific opinions than for the experience-

based opinions that caseworkers typically offer. For example, it

may not always be possible to tie caseworkers’ opinions to a

particular “scientific technique” or procedure. Shreck, 22 P.3d at

77-78. But Shreck expressly accounted for this prospect by

“declin[ing] to mandate that a trial court consider any particular set

of factors.” Id. at 77; see also id. at 78 (noting that a trial court

“need not consider any or all of [the listed] factors” and “may also

consider other factors not listed”). Given the flexible and fact-

specific nature of the inquiry, certain factors may be inapposite.

7
Kutzly, ¶ 12; see also Douglas, ¶ 75 (noting that “experience[]-based

testimony may invoke different reliability considerations than

scientific testimony” (citation omitted)). But the “overarching

mandate of reliability and relevance” is not. Shreck, 22 P.3d at 78.

¶ 18 That does not mean that all caseworker testimony is subject to

CRE 702. Caseworkers may, and often do, testify as fact witnesses

regarding their own observations and experiences with the child

and the family. See People v. Munoz-Casteneda, 2012 COA 109,

¶ 11 (“[T]he role of a fact witness is to relate, based on personal

knowledge, information or events relevant to an issue at trial.”).

They may also offer lay opinion testimony within the scope of CRE

701. Neither of these categories of testimony is subject to CRE 702.

¶ 19 But to the extent a caseworker offers expert opinions based on

“scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge,” CRE 702 —

including the Shreck framework — applies to such testimony.

C. CRE 702 Requires Findings

¶ 20 Because CRE 702 applies to caseworker expert testimony, the

juvenile court must, upon objection, make specific findings as to

the four Shreck factors — reliability, qualifications, usefulness, and

CRE 403 — before admitting such testimony. Ruibal, ¶ 12. The

8
proponent of the expert testimony bears the burden of showing that

the testimony satisfies each of those requirements. See People v.

Ramirez, 155 P.3d 371, 378 (Colo. 2007). Although a juvenile court

need not hold an evidentiary hearing if the record is sufficient to

support the necessary Shreck findings without one, its findings

must be explicit. Ruibal, ¶ 13; see also Kutzly, ¶ 11 (“[A] trial court

fails to make a specific finding if such a finding must be inferred.”).

¶ 21 First, the juvenile court must determine whether the scientific,

technical, or specialized principles underlying the caseworker’s

testimony are reasonably reliable. See Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc.

v. Sonitrol Corp., 2012 COA 120, ¶ 28. This inquiry must focus on

the reliability of the principles underlying the specific opinions

offered rather than of casework in the abstract. See People v.

Ornelas-Licano, 2020 COA 62, ¶ 48 (holding that “extensive

experience in shooting through various windshields” did not provide

a reliable basis for testimony as to “the relationship between the

angle of impact and the shape of the bullet hole”). That means that

some caseworker opinions may have a reasonably reliable basis

while others may not. See People v. Martinez, 2024 CO 69, ¶ 36

9
(noting that “it is often good practice . . . for the trial court to make

findings . . . as to . . . the proper scope of the expert’s testimony”).

¶ 22 As with all expert testimony, this inquiry “contemplates a wide

range of considerations that may be pertinent to the evidence at

issue.” Shreck, 22 P.3d at 77. We follow Shreck’s lead in declining

to limit the juvenile court’s analysis to any prescribed set of factors.

To the extent a caseworker’s opinion is based on a particular

technique, tool, or process,3 the juvenile court may find it helpful to

consider some or all of the nonexhaustive list of considerations in

Shreck, including (1) whether the technique can and has been

tested; (2) whether it has been subject to peer review and

publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error; and (4) whether

the technique has been generally accepted. See id. at 77-78. To the

extent an opinion is based more generally on a caseworker’s

experience or training, those factors may not be pertinent. See

3 For example, in mother’s motion to exclude the expert testimony,

she specifically challenged Colorado’s “child welfare safety
assessment tool,” citing a report from the Office of Colorado’s Child
Protection Ombudsman that the tool “has never been validated,” is
“used subjectively and inconsistently,” and is “unable to yield
consistent results.” Off. of Colo.’s Child Prot. Ombudsman,
Colorado’s Child Welfare System Interim Study Committee Hearing
One: June 27, 2023, at 4, https://perma.cc/24T2-QANQ.

10
Douglas, ¶ 75. But the court must still determine whether there is

a reasonably reliable basis for the caseworker’s opinion beyond the

caseworker’s own assertions. See Ornelas-Licano, ¶¶ 56, 57

(identifying “a number of ‘[r]ed flags that caution against certifying

an expert,’” including “reliance on anecdotal evidence,” “lack of

testing,” and “subjectivity,” among others (citation omitted)).

¶ 23 Second, the juvenile court must determine whether the

caseworker is “qualified to opine to the matter.” Core-Mark, ¶ 28.

Again, this inquiry must be tied to the specific proposed testimony:

Is the caseworker qualified to offer the particular opinion in

question? See Kutzly, ¶ 12. A witness may be qualified as an

expert based on “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or

education.” CRE 702; see also Douglas, ¶ 71; People in Interest of

A.E.L., 181 P.3d 1186, 1193 (Colo. App. 2008) (holding that

caseworkers were properly qualified as experts based on their

training and experience). If a witness is sufficiently qualified to

offer the proposed opinion, and the juvenile court so finds, any

challenges to the witness’s qualifications go to the weight of the

testimony, not its admissibility. See A.E.L., 181 P.3d at 1193.

11
¶ 24 Third, the juvenile court must determine whether the

testimony is useful — that is, whether it will “assist the trier of fact

to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” CRE

702; see Ruibal, ¶ 12. Taking into account both the subject matter

of the testimony and the witness offering it, this test boils down to

whether a fact finder can “receive appreciable help” on “this subject

. . . from this person.” People v. Cooper, 2021 CO 69, ¶ 48 (citation

omitted). This is a “common sense inquiry” that asks “whether an

untrained lay person would be qualified to determine a particular

issue ‘intelligently and to the best possible degree without

enlightenment from those having a specialized understanding of the

subject involved in the dispute.’” Id. (citation omitted).

¶ 25 Fourth, the court must find that “the probative value of the

evidence would not be substantially outweighed by any of the

countervailing considerations enumerated in [CRE 403],” including

the danger of unfair prejudice. Ruibal, ¶ 12; see also Shreck, 22

P.3d at 78 (“The trial court must also issue specific findings as to its

consideration under CRE 403 as to whether the probative value of

the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.”).

12
¶ 26 In summarizing these required findings, we do not mean to

suggest that the findings must be extensive or take any particular

form. See Kutzly, ¶¶ 14-16 (concluding that the trial court’s

findings, “while not ideal,” were sufficient to satisfy Shreck and CRE

702). Nor must the proceedings be unnecessarily protracted. See

People v. Rector, 248 P.3d 1196, 1201 (Colo. 2011) (discouraging

“unnecessary ‘reliability’ proceedings” (citation omitted)). The court

may choose to make the findings at a pretrial evidentiary hearing.

See Ruibal, ¶ 13. Or it may choose to withhold its ruling until the

testimony is offered at a hearing or trial. See id. And when the

reliability of the underlying principles has “already been determined

or is not disputed at all,” the court may decide it does not need any

further evidence of their reliability. Id. The method for making the

required determinations is within the juvenile court’s discretion. Id.

¶ 27 We hold only that when a party objects to caseworker expert

testimony on the ground that it does not satisfy CRE 702, the

juvenile court must make the required Shreck findings.

D. The Juvenile Court Did Not Make the Required Findings

¶ 28 Turning to the facts of this case, we first address and reject

mother’s contention that the juvenile court erred by denying her

13
request for a Shreck hearing. On the record before us, we cannot

say that the juvenile court abused its discretion by declining to hold

a pretrial evidentiary hearing. At the pretrial conference, the court

acknowledged the need to make findings but opted to defer those

findings to trial when it could consider the caseworkers’ testimony,

including any voir dire, in context. That may be an appropriate

procedure if the foundation can be laid at trial. See Ruibal, ¶ 13.

¶ 29 But we agree with mother that the juvenile court erred by

failing to make the specific findings required by CRE 702. The

extent of the juvenile court’s ruling as to each caseworker was

simply that the court would “qualify [the caseworker] as an expert

in casework with an emphasis in child protection” over mother’s

objection. The court did not address the substance of the proffered

testimony or make even general findings as to its relevance or

reliability. See Kutzly, ¶¶ 11, 15-16. At best, it found that the

caseworkers were qualified to offer some expert testimony. See

Ruibal, ¶ 15 (holding that “findings as to the qualifications of the

expert” are not alone sufficient). That finding did not address

mother’s arguments that the testimony was otherwise unreliable,

unhelpful, and unfairly prejudicial. Cf. Kutzly, ¶¶ 15-16 (holding

14
that the court made specific findings where it “disagreed with [the

defendant’s] argument,” “incorporated the People’s argument for

admissibility into its finding,” and “expressly found” that the

“proposed testimony was relevant” and not unduly prejudicial).

¶ 30 Nor does the record “virtually requir[e]” admission of the

testimony or “preclud[e] any reasonable dispute as to the basis” for

its admission. Ruibal, ¶ 14. The caseworkers’ foundational

testimony focused primarily on their education, training, and

experience. Beyond that, they offered little information about the

methods or principles underlying their opinions.

¶ 31 During voir dire, one caseworker could not identify any

objective basis for determining whether a child is in danger and

acknowledged that her conclusion was based on “subjective”

observations. The other two caseworkers identified various

“modalities” underlying their opinions but did not describe those

modalities, explain why they were reliable, or tie them to their

conclusions in this case. See id. at ¶ 15; cf. Shreck, 22 P.3d at 79-

80 (upholding admission of evidence derived from DNA “multiplex

testing,” despite lack of CRE 702 findings, where record contained

evidence of “numerous studies concerning multiplex testing,

15
widespread dissemination of multiplex information, and popular

use of multiplex system”). And the Department and GAL do not

point to any published case in Colorado that has “already properly

accepted the basis of the [caseworkers’] testimony.” Kutzly, ¶ 11.

¶ 32 The Department and GAL do cite A.E.L., in which a division of

this court held that the juvenile court properly exercised its

discretion by allowing caseworkers to testify as experts in social

work with an emphasis on child protection. 181 P.3d at 1193. But

A.E.L. did not identify the substance of the caseworkers’ opinions,

much less consider the reliability of the basis for those opinions.

Instead, though not entirely clear, A.E.L. appears to have been

limited to a challenge to the caseworkers’ qualifications, i.e., “their

training and experience.” Id. In any event, while we agree that “the

decision to qualify . . . caseworkers as experts [is] within the

[juvenile] court’s discretion,” id., that discretion does not obviate —

and indeed, reinforces — the need for findings, see Ruibal, ¶ 14.

¶ 33 The Department and GAL also argue that mother was able to

contest the reliability of the caseworkers’ opinions through cross-

examination and that her challenges go to the weight of the

testimony rather than its admissibility. But CRE 702 requires

16
expert testimony to “pass through the gate of admissibility” before it

may be presented to the jury. Cooper, ¶ 1. Only after the court

properly exercises its gatekeeping function — including by making

the required findings — does the question become one of weight.

See People v. Rodriguez-Ortiz, 2025 COA 61, ¶ 62 (noting that “any

shortcomings [in expert testimony] went to the weight of the

evidence” because it “satisfied the Shreck/CRE 702 threshold of

baseline reliability”); Allen v. Martin, 203 P.3d 546, 569 (Colo. App.

2008) (holding that an expert’s lack of qualifications and lack of a

sufficient factual basis are “matters of admissibility, not of weight”).

¶ 34 Thus, by failing to make the required CRE 702 findings before

admitting the caseworkers’ expert testimony over mother’s specific

objections, the juvenile court abused its discretion.

E. The Juvenile Court’s Error Was Not Harmless

¶ 35 Finally, we cannot conclude that the juvenile court’s error was

harmless. Cf. Ruibal, ¶ 17 (holding that error in admitting expert

testimony did not warrant reversal because it was harmless).

¶ 36 An evidentiary error is harmless if it does not affect the parties’

substantial rights. C.R.C.P. 61. An error is not harmless if “it can

be said with fair assurance that [the error] substantially influenced

17
the outcome of the case or impaired the basic fairness of the trial

itself.” People in Interest of M.V., 2018 COA 163, ¶ 66, overruled on

other grounds by, People in Interest of E.A.M. v. D.R.M., 2022 CO 42.

The question is not “whether there was sufficient evidence to

support the verdict without the improperly admitted evidence, but,

rather, whether the error substantially influenced the verdict or

affected the fairness of the trial proceedings.” Id. at ¶ 67.

¶ 37 For the reasons we explain above, we have substantial doubt

that the record in this case would have been sufficient to support

the required findings if the juvenile court had properly applied CRE

702. Cf. Shreck, 22 P.3d at 79-82 (applying CRE 702 on appeal and

concluding evidence was admissible even though trial court had

applied wrong standard). The caseworkers did not provide any

objective basis for their opinions, and the record does not otherwise

contain any evidence of the principles on which those opinions were

based. Nor do the Department or the GAL point to any other case

that has held that such opinions satisfy the CRE 702 standard for

admissibility. See id. at 79. Thus, although our analysis has

focused on the juvenile court’s failure to make findings, that error

18
resulted in the admission of expert testimony that, on this record,

may not have been admissible.4 See Ruibal, ¶ 14.

¶ 38 That testimony was central to the Department’s case. All

three caseworkers offered expert opinions that, among other things,

(1) the child was not safe when she was with mother; (2) the child

would not be in a safe environment if she were returned to mother’s

care; (3) there were concerns about mother’s substance use and

mental health; and (4) mother’s substance abuse impaired her

ability to care for the child. These assertions as to the fundamental

factual issues in the case were therefore bestowed not just with an

“expert’s stamp of approval” but with three experts’ stamps of

approval. People v. Baker, 2021 CO 29, ¶ 43 (citation omitted).

Moreover, the caseworkers’ testimony was the most direct evidence

of the child’s environment at the time of the adjudication, making it

critical to the jury’s determination of whether the child was

4 We stop short of saying that the record in this case could not have

supported admission of the testimony under CRE 702, if the
juvenile court had made the required findings. And we express no
opinion as to the admissibility of such testimony based on a
different record. We conclude only that there is a sufficient
likelihood on this record that the testimony would have been
inadmissible that we cannot say the lack of findings was harmless.

19
dependent or neglected. See People in Interest of J.G., 2016 CO 39,

¶ 38 (explaining that dependency or neglect adjudications relate

only to the status of the child as of the date of the adjudication).

¶ 39 Under these circumstances, the admission of the caseworkers’

expert testimony likely had a substantial influence on the jury

verdict and undermined the fairness of the proceedings. See M.V.,

¶ 67. We therefore must reverse the adjudication. See id. at ¶ 89.5

And because “an order adjudicating a child dependent and

neglected is necessary to vest the court with dispositional

remedies,” we vacate the dispositional order concerning mother as

well. People in Interest of U.S., 121 P.3d 326, 327 (Colo. App. 2005).

III. Disposition

¶ 40 The judgment adjudicating the child dependent or neglected is

reversed as to mother, the dispositional order concerning mother is

vacated, and the case is remanded for a new adjudicatory trial. If

any party elects to offer expert testimony from caseworkers at the

5 Because we are reversing the adjudication and “the issue is

unlikely to arise in precisely the same posture on remand,” we do
not address mother’s argument that the juvenile court erred by
admitting evidence of her prior dependency and neglect cases.
People v. Gulyas, 2022 COA 34, ¶ 29.

20
new trial, the juvenile court must make the findings required by

CRE 702 and Shreck in accordance with this opinion.

JUDGE DUNN and JUDGE BROWN concur.

21