Peo in Interest of DY

25CA2201 Peo in Interest of DY 06-04-2026

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 25CA2201
Fremont County District Court No. 24JV30031
Honorable Kaitlin B. Turner, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Appellee,

In the Interest of D.Y., a Child,

and Concerning S.F.,

Appellant.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division VII
Opinion by JUDGE MEIRINK
Pawar and Sullivan, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced June 4, 2026

Eric Bellas, County Attorney, Sean Biddle, Assistant County Attorney, Canon
City, Colorado, for Appellee

Jenna L. Mazzucca, Guardian Ad Litem

Just Law Group, LLC, John F. Poor, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant
¶1 In this dependency and neglect proceeding, S.F. (mother)

appeals the judgment terminating her parent-child legal

relationship with D.Y. (the child). We affirm.

I. Background

¶2 In May 2024, the Fremont County Department of Human

Services received a report that the then-two-year-old child had been

“wandering around [the town] with just a diaper on, filthy,

dehydrated,” and without parental supervision. Shortly thereafter,

the Department filed a petition in dependency or neglect concerning

the child.1 In conjunction with the petition, the Department filed an

initial report indicating that starting in April 2023, it had received

numerous referrals about the family. The report also described the

Department’s concerns about the parents’ protective capacities,

substance use, and domestic violence.

1 The child’s two older half-siblings were initially named in the

petition. However, there was an order out of a pre-existing
domestic relations case that allocated parental responsibilities of
the middle child to her father and granted supervised visits to
mother. And the magistrate in this case granted an allocation of
parental responsibilities for the oldest child to his paternal
grandmother. Thus, both half-siblings were dismissed from the
case and are not part of this appeal.

1
¶3 The juvenile court granted temporary legal custody of the child

to the Department, which placed him with his maternal

grandmother. After mother admitted the allegations in the petition,

the court adjudicated the child dependent or neglected. The court

then adopted a treatment plan for mother that required her to

cooperate with the Department, address her substance use issues,

provide a safe and stable home environment, improve her parenting

skills, and maintain a relationship with the child.

¶4 The Department later moved to terminate mother’s parental

rights. After a three-day hearing, and approximately one year after

the case opened, the magistrate granted the termination motion.

Specifically, the magistrate found that mother hadn’t attended

family time during the three months leading up to the hearing;

mother’s relationship with the child had “gotten more and more

strained” during the proceedings; mother’s living situation wasn’t

safe for the child; mother exhibited the same problems addressed in

her treatment plan without adequate improvement; and mother

couldn’t meet the child’s needs. The magistrate also found that an

allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) to maternal

2
grandmother wasn’t a viable less drastic alternative and that

termination was in the child’s best interests.

¶5 Pursuant to section 19-1-108(5.5), C.R.S. 2025, mother

petitioned the juvenile court to review the magistrate’s termination

order. Mother argued that the magistrate erroneously found that

an APR to maternal grandmother was not a viable less drastic

alternative to termination. Specifically, she asserted that the

finding was erroneous because termination based “solely” on a

placement provider’s unwillingness to accept an APR didn’t

“withstand [a] strict scrutiny analysis.” Noting that the magistrate’s

less drastic alternatives finding was supported by the record, the

juvenile court disagreed with mother’s argument and adopted the

magistrate’s termination order.

II. Less Drastic Alternatives

¶6 On appeal, mother contends that the juvenile court erred by

adopting the magistrate’s termination order. Mother argues that

(1) the magistrate’s less drastic alternatives finding was erroneous

because there was “little evidence that maintaining the legal parent-

child relationship would be detrimental to the child” and (2) the

magistrate’s decision to terminate mother’s parental rights

3
“unconstitutionally infringe[d] on mother’s fundamental right to

parent without a sufficient child protection justification.” We

discern no error.

A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review

¶7 The juvenile court may terminate a parent’s rights if it finds,

by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the child was adjudicated

dependent or neglected; (2) the parent hasn’t complied with an

appropriate, court-approved treatment plan or the plan hasn’t 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. 2025.

¶8 The consideration and elimination of less drastic alternatives

are implicit in the statutory criteria for termination. People in

Interest of A.M. v. T.M., 2021 CO 14, ¶ 40. In considering less

drastic alternatives, a juvenile court must give primary

consideration to the child’s physical, mental, and emotional

conditions and needs. People in Interest of Z.M., 2020 COA 3M,

¶ 29. A juvenile court may also consider other factors, including

whether an ongoing relationship with a parent would be beneficial

to the child, which is influenced by a parent’s fitness to care for the

4
child’s needs. People in Interest of A.R., 2012 COA 195M, ¶ 38.

And a juvenile court may also consider whether the placement

provider favors adoption over an APR. Z.M., ¶ 31.

¶9 For a less drastic alternative to be viable, it must do more than

“adequately” meet a child’s needs; rather, the less drastic

alternative must be the best option for the child. A.M., ¶ 27. Long-

term or permanent placement with a family member or foster

family, short of termination, may not be a viable less drastic

alternative if it doesn’t provide adequate permanence that adoption

would provide or otherwise meet a child’s needs. A.R., ¶ 41. If a

juvenile court considers a less drastic alternative but finds instead

that termination is in the child’s best interests, it must reject the

less drastic alternative and order termination. A.M., ¶ 32.

¶ 10 In a case heard by a magistrate, the parties are bound by

the magistrate’s findings and recommendations, subject to a

request for juvenile court review. § 19-1-108(3)(a.5); People in

Interest of L.B-H-P., 2021 COA 5, ¶ 9. Our review of a juvenile

court’s decision to adopt a magistrate’s order is effectively a second

layer of appellate review. People in Interest of N.G., 2012 COA 131,

¶ 37.

5
¶ 11 We review a juvenile court’s less drastic alternatives findings

for clear error. People in Interest of E.W., 2022 COA 12, ¶ 34.

Accordingly, when a juvenile court considers a less drastic

alternative but instead finds that termination is in the child’s best

interests, we are bound to affirm the court’s decision so long as the

record supports its findings. People in Interest of B.H., 2021 CO 39,

¶ 80.

B. Analysis

¶ 12 The magistrate considered whether an APR to grandmother

was a viable less drastic alternative but ultimately concluded that

termination was in the child’s best interests. Specifically, the

magistrate found that an APR to grandmother wasn’t a viable

alternative because maternal grandmother preferred termination

and adoption, and “forcing an APR” on a caretaker who doesn’t

prefer it “doesn’t work very well.” That finding was supported by

the record — maternal grandmother testified that she didn’t believe

she could “productively co-parent” with mother because of mother’s

behaviors and that she didn’t believe an APR was in the child’s best

interests because he needed a safe and stable environment without

the future possibility of being “bounced in and out of the system.”

6
¶ 13 Moreover, as noted by the juvenile court, the magistrate’s

finding that termination was in the child’s best interests was

supported by the caseworker’s testimony. The caseworker — who

testified as an expert in social work with an emphasis in child

welfare, child safety, child education, and early childhood

development — opined that termination was in the child’s best

interests because it would provide the sense of permanency he

needed based on his young age, developmental needs, and inability

to self-protect. The caseworker explained that while an APR might

be stable “in the beginning,” the child “could possibly have to go

back” to mother at some point in the future, and leaving that

possibility open wasn’t in the child’s best interests.

¶ 14 Mother’s expert witness testified that, in general, children who

experience termination of their parents’ rights often experience

“adoption-related loss” and “disenfranchised grief.” The expert also

testified that the risk of trauma was potentially greater when

children in the same family have different permanency outcomes —

for example, if one sibling’s legal relationship with a parent is

terminated while another sibling retains a legal relationship with

that parent through an APR. Despite the expert witness’s

7
testimony, the magistrate still found that termination was in the

child’s best interests. And we cannot reweigh the evidence. See

People in Interest of K.L.W., 2021 COA 56, ¶ 62 (it is not our role to

reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the

juvenile court); see also In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning

B.R.D., 2012 COA 63, ¶ 15 (when the record supports the trial

court’s findings, its resolution of conflicting evidence is binding on

review); In re Marriage of Hatton, 160 P.3d 326, 329 (Colo. App.

2007) (an appellate court may presume that the trial court

considered all of the evidence admitted).

¶ 15 We reject mother’s argument that the juvenile court erred by

declining to order an APR. According to mother, maternal

grandmother didn’t indicate that she would refuse to accept an APR

or surrender custody of the child if the court had ordered an APR.

But the fact that grandmother would not have relinquished custody

if the court had ordered an APR didn’t, on its own, render an APR a

viable less drastic alternative. Although the magistrate didn’t

specifically find that an APR wasn’t in the child’s best interests, it

explicitly found that termination was. Moreover, the magistrate

stated that in making all of its findings, it gave primary

8
consideration to the physical, mental, and emotional needs of the

child. And, as noted by the juvenile court, the record showed that

termination, not an APR, was in the child’s best interests not only

because maternal grandmother preferred it, but also because of the

child’s need for long-term stability and permanency. See Z.M., ¶¶

29, 31; A.R., ¶ 41.

¶ 16 We also reject mother’s argument that the juvenile court

violated her constitutional right to parent by declining to enter an

APR to grandmother. Relying on A.M., mother argues that a less

drastic alternative doesn’t have to be “the very best option for the

child,” and the child’s needs would’ve been adequately met with an

APR to maternal grandmother.

¶ 17 However, mother’s reliance on A.M. is misplaced. In that case,

the supreme court considered and rejected the exact argument

mother makes here. See A.M., ¶¶ 33-38. Specifically, the supreme

court rejected an “adequacy” standard for determining whether a

less drastic alternative is viable, stating that “[p]rimary

consideration of the child’s physical, mental, and emotional

condition and needs requires more than a mere assessment of

adequacy in order to satisfy the overall intent of the Children’s

9
Code.” Id. at ¶ 31. The supreme court acknowledged that parents

have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care,

custody, and management of their children. Id. at ¶ 35. But “once

the trial court is persuaded that the State has established a

parent’s lack of fitness, the interests of the child and the parent

diverge,” and “the separate interests of the child outweigh the risk

of erroneous termination of the parent-child relationship.” Id. at ¶

36. Thus, “the consideration and elimination of a less drastic

alternative to termination on the ground that termination best

serves the child’s interests, where the statutory criteria for

termination are otherwise established by clear and convincing

evidence, satisfies due process.” Id. at ¶ 37.

¶ 18 Here, mother doesn’t challenge any of the magistrate’s findings

regarding the termination factors set forth in section 19-3-604(1)(c).

And, as noted above, sufficient evidence supports the magistrate’s

finding that termination, not an APR, was in the child’s best

interests.

¶ 19 Accordingly, we agree with the juvenile court that the

magistrate didn’t err by finding that termination, rather than an

APR, was in the child’s best interests. See B.H., ¶ 80.

10
III. Disposition

¶ 20 The judgment is affirmed.

JUDGE PAWAR and JUDGE SULLIVAN concur.

11