in Interest of S.R.N.J-S

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
January 23, 2020

2020COA12

No. 19CA0439, People in Interest of S.R.N.J-S. — Juvenile
Court — Dependency and Neglect — Termination of the Parent-
Child Legal Relationship — Criteria for Termination

In this termination of parental rights case, a division of the

court of appeals clarifies that the termination of parental rights

statute, section 19-3-604(1)(c), C.R.S. 2019, requires a finding that

a parent is unfit to terminate parental rights, and not “semi-fit” as

the juvenile court found here. It further clarifies that without a

parental unfitness finding supported by the evidence, the need for

permanency is not enough to terminate parental rights.

Because the court’s findings of evidentiary facts are separate

from the court’s fitness conclusion and the evidentiary facts here

are clearly erroneous and do not support a conclusion that the
parents were unfit, the division concludes that the juvenile court

erred in terminating the parents’ parental rights.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2020COA12

Court of Appeals No. 19CA0439
City and County of Denver Juvenile Court No. 17JV1077
Honorable Laurie A. Clark, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Appellee,

In the Interest of S.R.N.J-S. and M.A.J-S., Children,

and Concerning A.N.J-S. and J.A.G.,

Appellants.

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Division III
Opinion by JUDGE DUNN
Webb and Lipinsky, JJ., concur

Announced January 23, 2020

Kristin M. Bronson, City Attorney, Laura Grzetic Eibsen, Assistant City
Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee

Barry Meinster, Guardian Ad Litem

The Law Office of Michael Kovaka, Michael Kovaka, Littleton, Colorado, for
Appellant A.N.J-S.

Pamela K. Streng, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Georgetown,
Colorado, for Appellant J.A.G.
¶1 Father, J.A.G., and mother, A.N.J-S., appeal the juvenile

court’s judgment terminating their parent-child legal relationships

with their children, S.R.N.J-S. and M.A.J-S. Because the evidence

doesn’t support the juvenile court’s conclusion that the parents

were unfit, we must reverse and remand the case.

I. Background

¶2 This is the family’s second dependency and neglect

proceeding. In the first case, the Denver Department of Human

Services removed the children, a twin boy and girl, shortly after

their births because mother was using controlled substances. The

case was closed a year later, and the Department returned the

children to mother. Father was living in Mexico and visited the

children sporadically.

¶3 The Department initiated this case in July 2017 due to

mother’s possible methamphetamine use and reported domestic

violence and abuse. The juvenile court adjudicated the then-

three-year-old twins dependent or neglected and entered treatment

plans for the parents.

¶4 Father was still living in Mexico when the Department filed the

case. Although the Department served him with notice of the

1
proceeding, father did not contact the Department until March

2018, when he began relocating to Colorado.

¶5 Two weeks after father made his first court appearance, the

children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) moved to terminate the parents’

parental rights. In an uncommon turn, the Department opposed

the motion and moved, instead, to increase parenting time and

transition the children home.

¶6 The juvenile court held a twelve-day hearing on the competing

motions between August 2018 and February 2019. At the end of

the hearing, the court granted the GAL’s motion and terminated

both parents’ parental rights.

II. Termination of Parental Rights

¶7 The goal of a dependency and neglect case is to preserve the

parent-child relationship whenever possible. People in Interest of

C.A.K., 652 P.2d 603, 610 (Colo. 1982). And given that the

termination of the parent-child legal relationship affects a parent’s

fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of the child,

the state must exercise extreme caution in terminating parental

rights. K.D. v. People, 139 P.3d 695, 700 (Colo. 2006). For this

reason, a juvenile court must strictly comply with the statutory

2
termination criteria. Id.; People in Interest of L.M., 2018 COA 57M,

¶ 18.

¶8 To terminate parental rights, a juvenile court must find, by

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

dependent and neglected; (2) the parent didn’t comply with an

appropriate, court-approved treatment plan or the plan wasn’t

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. 2019. The burden of proof lies with the

party seeking termination. People in Interest of S.N-V., 300 P.3d

911, 914 (Colo. App. 2011) (the due process requirements for

a termination hearing place no duty on a respondent parent).

¶9 An unfit parent is one whose conduct or condition renders the

parent unable to give a child reasonable parental care.

§ 19-3-604(2). Reasonable parental care requires, at a minimum,

that the parent provide nurturing and protection adequate to meet

the child’s physical, emotional, and mental health needs. Id.;

accord L.M., ¶ 28.

3
A. Standard of Review

¶ 10 “Whether a juvenile court properly terminated parental rights

presents a mixed question of fact and law because it involves

application of the termination statute to evidentiary facts.” L.M.,

¶ 17. We review the juvenile court’s findings of evidentiary fact —

the raw, historical data underlying the controversy — for clear error

and accept them if they have record support. Id.; see also People in

Interest of S.N. v. S.N., 2014 CO 64, ¶ 21. But we review de novo

the juvenile court’s legal conclusions based on those facts. People

in Interest of S.K., 2019 COA 36, ¶ 41; L.M., ¶ 17.

¶ 11 Whether the evidence establishes that a parent is unfit is

ultimately a legal conclusion because its resolution requires

application of the evidentiary facts to the termination statute. See

§ 19-3-604; S.N., ¶ 21; see also People in Interest of A.J.L., 243 P.3d

244, 246 (Colo. 2010) (evidence supported the juvenile court’s

factual “findings and its legal conclusion that [parent was] unfit”).

¶ 12 Because we review de novo the court’s legal conclusions, we

need not consider mother’s proposal that we conduct an

“independent appellate review” of the juvenile court’s termination

order.

4
B. The Oral and Written Termination Orders

¶ 13 At the end of the termination hearing, the juvenile court

issued a detailed oral order terminating the parents’ parental rights.

Later, it issued a short written termination order that contained

little detail. What’s problematic for our purposes is that the oral

parental fitness findings are different from those in the written

order.

¶ 14 Specifically, in its oral termination order, the juvenile court

found the parents’ “conduct or condition [was] semi-fit at this

time[,] that they can provide reasonable parental care for the

children[,] and additional time will likely not change the conduct or

condition within a reasonable period of time.”1 Despite the

suggestion of parental fitness, and without further explanation as to

fitness, the court terminated father’s and mother’s parental rights.

¶ 15 Shortly after the hearing, the court issued its written

termination order, which recited the parties’ names, the date it

entered its oral ruling, and the required statutory findings.

———————————————————————
1Reading the termination order as a whole, it seems this sentence
contains a typographical error and the court intended to say the
parents “cannot” provide reasonable parental care. But even
assuming such error, it doesn’t affect our analysis.

5
Regarding fitness, the written order merely stated the parents “are

unfit[] as parents for the minor children.” But it doesn’t explain

how or why the court went from “semi-fit” in its oral termination

order to “unfit” in its written one.

¶ 16 Generally, a written order controls over a conflicting oral

ruling. People in Interest of T.B., 2019 COA 89, ¶ 56 n.1 (Webb, J.,

dissenting). Here, however, the written order contained no facts

specific to this case (other than basic identification and procedural

facts). And the court noted in the written order that its oral ruling

“more explicitly detailed” the court’s findings and those “FINDINGS

AND ORDER[] ARE HEREIN INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.”

¶ 17 So, to the extent the oral order controls, for a couple of

reasons we conclude it’s insufficient to support terminating

parental rights. First, beyond being somewhere between fit and

unfit, we don’t know what “semi-fit” means. Second, even if “semi-

fit” has some generally accepted meaning, “semi-fitness” is not a

basis upon which to terminate parental rights under section 19-3-

604(1)(c)(II). Rather, to terminate parental rights, a court must find

by clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit. See

§ 19-3-604(1)(c)(II); see also People in Interest of M.M., 215 P.3d

6
1237, 1252 (Colo. App. 2009). The oral termination order therefore

lacks the necessary unfitness finding required to terminate the

parents’ parental rights.

¶ 18 Given the parental unfitness findings in the written

termination order, we next consider whether clear and convincing

evidence supports those findings.

C. Father’s Parental Fitness

¶ 19 At the termination hearing, the caseworker testified that she

(1) believed father can provide reasonable parental care; (2) had no

concerns about father’s ability to meet the children’s needs; and (3)

agreed father is willing to provide for the reasonable needs of the

children. She concluded that, in her expert opinion, father “is a fit

and appropriate parent” for the children and termination of father’s

parental rights wasn’t in the children’s best interests. Father’s

visitation supervisor agreed that father could meet the children’s

needs.

¶ 20 Though contending the juvenile court correctly found father

unfit, the GAL points us to no record evidence supporting a

different assessment of father’s parental fitness. Nor did we find

any witness who testified father was unfit.

7
¶ 21 Despite this seemingly uncontradicted evidence that father

was fit and could provide reasonable parental care for the children,

we recognize that the juvenile court made some oral findings that

addressed father’s fitness, including that father (1) had “not used

the assistance and services provided to establish a parental

relationship with his children where he can care for them and meet

their needs on a full-time basis”; (2) “refused to take an active part

in raising these children”; (3) “struggle[s] to visit the children once

per week, [and] is unable to find the time in his week to visit more

often”; and (4) “disputes the encouragement from the professionals

on this case.”

¶ 22 We therefore examine whether clear and convincing evidence

supports these findings, and, if so, whether the findings support the

conclusion father was unfit.

1. Parental Relationship

¶ 23 We are unable to find record support for the court’s finding

that father refused assistance, declined to participate in services, or

lacked a parental relationship with the children. Rather, the

visitation supervisor testified that father consistently exhibited

strong parenting skills, was attuned to the children’s needs, and

8
appeared to have a secure, strong bond with them. And the

supervisor believed that reunification could be achieved in a

reasonable time and would provide the children the permanency

they needed. The visitation supervisor also stated that father had

“consistently remained open to feedback, suggestion, and

collaboration.”

2. Participation and Visitation

¶ 24 Nor do we agree that the record established that father didn’t

actively participate in raising the children, and to the extent the

court found that father struggled to visit them, we can’t agree that

the few missed visits were sufficient to establish by clear and

convincing evidence that father failed to provide reasonable parental

care for the children. See L.M., ¶ 17.

¶ 25 To be sure, father visited the children infrequently before the

case began and did not visit them during the first year of the case.

But the evidence showed that once he relocated to Colorado, father

actively engaged in the case, exhibited good parenting skills,

communicated regularly with the children’s therapist and other

professionals, and otherwise complied with his treatment plan.

9
¶ 26 While father only had one visit per week, the GAL opposed the

Department’s recommendations to increase visitation (seeking

termination instead) and the juvenile court declined requests to

increase visits. Despite the failed efforts to increase father’s visits,

the caseworker and the visitation supervisor testified that father’s

visits went well and that father provided for the children during the

visits.

¶ 27 And we can’t agree that father’s work schedule, which, at

times, limited his availability for visits, rendered him legally unfit.

True, as the juvenile court found, the record shows father had to

cancel some visits because he had to work and was not able to

make up all the visits due to his work schedule. But father’s

visitation supervisor attributed the difficulty in scheduling make-up

dates to the foster parents’ schedule, father’s schedule, and other

circumstances.

¶ 28 We recognize that father had a demanding work schedule, but

nothing we see in the record — and the GAL points us to nothing —

shows that the few missed visits impacted father’s treatment plan

compliance, his ability to meet the children’s reasonable needs, or

his demonstrated success in parenting the children. What’s more,

10
we imagine that most (perhaps all) working parents face similar

scheduling conflicts at one time or another. Grappling with such

conflicts doesn’t, on its own, make them legally unfit.

3. Encouragement

¶ 29 Last, we find no record support for the finding that father

“dispute[d] . . . encouragement from the professionals on this case.”

To the contrary, the children’s therapist testified that father was

receptive to information even when it was difficult to hear. And the

visitation supervisor testified that father took feedback well and

used suggestions from the children’s therapist in visitation.

¶ 30 In sum, under these circumstances, we conclude that the

juvenile court’s findings that bear on father’s fitness lack record

support and are clearly erroneous. To the extent the record

supports the juvenile court’s findings regarding the missed visits,

we can’t conclude that this evidence standing alone established

father’s unfitness by clear and convincing evidence.

D. Mother’s Parental Fitness

¶ 31 When asked about mother, the caseworker opined that

“[mother] is a fit and stable parent” and “is willing to provide” the

11
children reasonable parental care. Explaining the basis for this

opinion, the caseworker testified that

• mother “exhibited every objective in her treatment” and had

demonstrated that “she’s able to implement [these] services

in her parenting practices”;

• as evidenced through her visitations, mother can parent the

children, “meet the children’s needs,” “redirect the children”

as needed, and “appropriately engage with [the] children”;

and

• mother and the children have a bond.

¶ 32 The caseworker further opined that it was not in the children’s

best interests to terminate mother’s parental rights.

¶ 33 The caseworker was not alone in her assessment. Other

providers who had observed mother with the children testified that

(1) mother and the children are bonded and attached to each other;

(2) mother provides for the children’s physical and emotional needs;

and (3) the visits improved over the course of the case, which could

be attributed to mother’s “consistency in parenting.”

¶ 34 Again, the GAL points us to no witness who opined that

mother was unfit. Nor are we able to find one.

12
¶ 35 Still, we again look to the juvenile court’s detailed oral findings

to assess the sufficiency of its conclusion in its written order that

mother was unfit. These findings appear to center on mother’s

noncompliance with her treatment plan. Given that such

noncompliance may be considered in determining parental fitness,

see People in Interest of D.P., 181 P.3d 403, 408 (Colo. App. 2008),

we turn to these findings.

¶ 36 The purpose of a treatment plan is to help a parent overcome

the problems that led the Department to intervene. C.A.K., 652

P.2d at 610. To address the Department’s concerns here

(substance use, domestic violence, and abuse), mother’s treatment

plan required her to (1) complete substance abuse and mental

health treatment; (2) enhance and maintain family bonding and

ties; (3) maintain safe and stable housing; (4) cooperate with the

caseworker, GAL, and treating professionals; and (5) support herself

and the children financially.

¶ 37 The juvenile court found, with record support, that mother

successfully completed substance abuse treatment and mental

health treatment. For the remaining objectives, the court found

that mother was “partially successful,” but ultimately concluded

13
that the treatment plan was unsuccessful. So, we consider the

evidence related to these treatment plan components, but again

conclude that the evidence didn’t support the court’s conclusion

that mother was unfit.

1. Enhance and Maintain Family Bonding and Ties

¶ 38 The juvenile court recognized that mother had attended most

of her visits during the past year, arriving early and prepared. Yet

the court found that mother was “partially successful” in this

objective because of the following:

• The son did not go to mother for comfort as recently as

three months before the court entered its order.

• The son had bathroom accidents while visiting with mother,

but not with father.

• Both children had emotional setbacks when mother became

agitated around the bathroom accidents.

• Mother’s fourth visitation supervisor testified that the son’s

attachment with mother was ambivalent but improving.

¶ 39 But despite the court’s identified concerns, our review of the

record shows that by all accounts the treatment plan had done

what it was supposed to; that is, it improved mother’s bonding and

14
ties with the children. And a treatment plan is successful if “it

corrects or improves the original conduct or condition which led to

intervention by the state.” People in Interest of C.L.I., 710 P.2d

1183, 1185 (Colo. App. 1985) (emphasis added).

¶ 40 In this regard, the caseworker explained that mother’s visits

had been very positive, and she had shown at these visits that “she

can meet the children’s needs[,] [t]hat she can redirect the

children[, and] [t]hat she knows how to appropriately engage with

the children.” And the caseworker testified that mother had

“successfully completed [this] objective . . . of the treatment plan.”

¶ 41 As well, mother’s visitation supervisors generally described

mother implementing parenting techniques with her children that

she had learned through treatment. Importantly, the fourth

visitation supervisor (the most recent one) testified that there had

been steady improvement in the son’s relationship with mother,

explaining that the son had recently sought mother out for play

activities, was listening better to her directions, and was accepting

and seeking her affection. The visitation supervisor also said in

December 2018 that there had been no bathroom accidents for two

months.

15
¶ 42 And we were unable to find any evidence that mother became

agitated in response to bathroom accidents. To the contrary,

mother’s fourth visitation supervisor testified that mother tended to

the son’s needs when he had an accident; she did not yell, raise her

voice, or shame him; and she gave him the choice of whether to

clean himself or have her clean him.

¶ 43 Nor did the fourth visitation supervisor testify that the son had

an ambivalent attachment to mother. Instead, he stated that, in

comparison with the daughter, the son had “a degree of

ambivalence” toward mother. But as the visitation supervisor

explained in conjunction with this statement, their relationship was

improving.

¶ 44 True, the children’s therapist attributed some of the children’s

struggles to their visits with mother. The therapist, however,

admittedly never observed any visits between mother and her

children. What’s more, when the children’s therapist testified a

second time in February 2019 (shortly before the court’s

termination order), she declined to opine that termination of

mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.

16
2. Maintain a Safe, Stable, and Suitable Home

¶ 45 In concluding that mother was “partially successful” in

maintaining safe, stable, and suitable housing, the juvenile court

noted that mother had a lifetime housing voucher and had secured

a suitable home for the children. Still, the court was “reluctant to

make a finding by clear and convincing evidence that [m]other ha[d]

been successful on this component” of her treatment plan because

mother had forfeited a lifetime housing voucher in the past, had

lived in the home less than four weeks, and had lived in thirteen

residences in the past five years.

¶ 46 Despite mother’s past struggles with permanent housing, the

evidence was undisputed that by the end of the termination hearing

mother had obtained the safe, stable, and suitable housing her

treatment plan required. Indeed, the caseworker confirmed the

housing was suitable, safe, and “very appropriate.” Discounting

this evidence by requiring mother to somehow overcome evidence of

her past housing struggles and show that they would not affect the

housing she had secured suggests the court shifted the burden to

mother to show compliance with the housing objective, rather than

requiring the GAL to prove that mother had not reasonably

17
complied with it. See S.N-V., 300 P.3d at 914; see also

§ 19-3-604(1)(c)(I). In this respect, the juvenile court erred.

3. Cooperation

¶ 47 The juvenile court next found that mother was “partially

compliant” in cooperating with the caseworker, GAL, and treating

professionals. It explained that mother completely engaged with

those providers aligned with her but resisted others she perceived

as not being aligned with her. The latter category, the court found,

included the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), the GAL,

the children’s therapist, and mother’s second visitation supervisor.

But the evidence doesn’t support these findings.

¶ 48 To start, a CASA is not a caseworker, GAL, or treating

professional, so it is unclear whether mother’s treatment plan

objective applied to the CASA. In any event, the CASA testified that

mother had been very responsive once she engaged in her treatment

plan and that mother’s progress had been tremendous and

commendable. True, the CASA said mother had not replied to three

recent messages, but the CASA thought that was because the

termination proceeding had begun. She gave no indication that

mother resisted her or thought she was not aligned with mother.

18
¶ 49 We likewise are unable to find any testimony or evidence from

the termination hearing to support the court’s finding that mother

resisted the GAL.

¶ 50 As well, the children’s therapist testified in September 2018

that mother regularly contacted her to discuss the children’s

symptoms and progress in therapy. And in February 2019, she

testified that mother always appeared receptive to information and

continued to contact her regularly after the termination proceedings

began. She explained that when she and mother had trouble

connecting by telephone, they still communicated by text message.

The testimony also showed that, throughout the case, mother

followed through on homework the therapist assigned, used the

techniques she suggested, continued to be receptive to suggestions,

and had fruitful discussions with the therapist.

¶ 51 And, finally, mother’s second visitation supervisor testified to a

single negative interaction in one of the three visits she supervised.

The visitation supervisor testified that, at that visit, she interrupted

mother to provide therapeutic intervention — an approach mother

had never experienced in nineteen previous visits at the agency,

including two with this supervisor — without first explaining the

19
new protocol. According to the supervisor, (1) mother told her not

to interrupt and that they could talk afterward; (2) the visitation

supervisor continued to intervene; and (3) mother became verbally

disrespectful and combative, so the supervisor ended the visit. 2

Even so, this single visit occurred approximately eight months

before the order terminating parental rights and reflected an event

neither repeated nor reported again by any other visitation

supervisor or mother’s caseworker.

¶ 52 Except for this single interaction with mother’s second

visitation supervisor, the record contains no evidence that mother

did not cooperate with (or resisted working with) the professionals

in her case or that she perceived any professional as not aligned

with her. And given the evidence that mother complied with her

treatment plan and was fit, we can’t agree that a single negative

interaction with one visitation supervisor established by clear and

convincing evidence that mother was unfit.

———————————————————————
2 We recognize that another agency employee contradicted the

supervisor’s account of mother’s conduct, but it was the juvenile
court’s prerogative to resolve this evidentiary conflict.

20
4. Financially Support Herself and the Children

¶ 53 The treatment plan required mother to maintain a legal source

of income, ensure that the children’s material needs were met, and

provide proof of income to the Department.

¶ 54 The juvenile court acknowledged that mother had “been

employed for most of this case” but again found that she was only

partially successful in this treatment plan component. It explained

that mother had been unemployed for one three-week period during

the case, had many short-term periods of employment, and had

changed jobs in the past six months.

¶ 55 But, as the evidence showed, mother was employed at the

completion of the termination hearing and no evidence suggested

that her employment was temporary or otherwise unstable. The

caseworker confirmed that mother had provided proof of

employment and testified that mother had successfully complied

with this objective.

¶ 56 We therefore see nothing in the record showing that mother

was unable to financially support herself and the children or that

she failed to comply with this component of the treatment plan.

21
¶ 57 In sum, after reviewing the record, we conclude that (1) many

of the court’s findings on mother’s compliance with her treatment

plan are clearly erroneous and (2) the few findings that are

supported by the record do not support the juvenile court’s

conclusion that the GAL proved by clear and convincing evidence

that mother was unfit.

III. The Children’s Need for Permanency

¶ 58 All that said, we understand the juvenile court’s legitimate

concern for the children’s need for permanency and stability. The

children’s therapist testified that the children had struggled with

the lack of consistency, and the caseworker agreed that the children

needed stability and permanency. Indeed, by the age of four, the

children had changed homes and caregivers four times.

¶ 59 Juvenile courts must give primary consideration to the child’s

physical, mental, and emotional conditions and needs when

considering termination. § 19-3-604(3). And a determination of

parental fitness is intertwined with a determination of the child’s

best interests. K.D., 139 P.3d at 700; see also People in Interest of

E.A., 638 P.2d 278, 285 (Colo. 1981). But a parent may not be

deemed unfit simply to improve the child’s condition. E.A., 638

22
P.2d at 285; L.M., ¶ 29; accord Northland v. Starr, 581 N.W.2d 210,

213 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (possible destructive emotional injury of

removing four-year-old child from stepfather’s home after mother’s

death did not outweigh the long-term benefit of shifting custody to

fit father).

¶ 60 Given that the evidence didn’t support a finding that the

parents were unfit, the need for permanency alone wasn’t sufficient

to terminate the parents’ constitutional interest in the care and the

custody of their children. § 19-3-604(1)(c); L.M., ¶ 29; see also

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 657-58 (1972) (state has no

interest in separating children from custody of fit parents); cf.

People in Interest of M.D., 2014 COA 121, ¶ 43 (in contrast to

termination of parental rights, section 19-3-702(4), C.R.S. 2019,

allows a juvenile court to award permanent custody to a nonparent

without finding parental unfitness in some circumstances).

IV. Conclusion

¶ 61 The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the

juvenile court.

JUDGE WEBB and JUDGE LIPINSKY concur.

23