parent challenge in Colorado

2025See People in Interest of S.N-V., 300 P.3d 911 , 913 (Colo. App. 2011) (recognizing that divisions of this court disagree on whether a parent may challenge reasonable efforts for the first time on appeal).

2025Compare People in Interest of S.N-V., 300 P.3d 911 , 916 (Colo. App. 2011) (holding that a parent’s failure to object to services does not bar appellate review of a reasonable efforts finding), with People in Interest of D.P., 160 P.3d 351 , 355-56 (Colo. App. 2007) (declining to review a reasonable efforts finding because the parent failed to object to services before the termination hearing).

2025Compare People in Interest of S.N-V., 300 P.3d 911 , 916 (Colo. App. 2011) (holding that a parent’s failure to object to services does not bar appellate review of a reasonable efforts finding), with People in Interest of D.P., 160 P.3d 351 , 355-56 (Colo. App. 2007) (declining to review a reasonable efforts finding because the parent failed to object to services provided before the termination hearing). ¶9 However, we need not determine whether the parents preserved their reasonable efforts claims because even if we assume that they did, we discern no basis for reversal.

2025Compare People in Interest of S.N-V., 300 P.3d 911 , 916 (Colo. App. 2011) (holding that a parent’s failure to object to services does not bar appellate review of a reasonable efforts finding), with People in Interest of D.P., 160 P.3d 351 , 355-56 (Colo. App. 2007) (declining to review a reasonable efforts finding because the parent failed to object to services before the termination hearing).

2007People in Interest of A.J., supra ; People in Interest of T.D., 140 P.3d 205, 217-18 (Colo.App.2006).

2007People in Interest of A.J., supra; People in Interest of T.D., 140 P.3d 205, 217-18 (Colo.App.2006).

2020See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 753–54 (1982) (noting that parents’ fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children requires states to afford respondent parents fundamentally fair procedures when seeking to terminate parental rights); People in Interest of C.H., 166 P.3d 288 , 290 (Colo. App. 2007) (noting that although a parent’s right to appointed counsel in termination proceedings is statutory and not constitutional, Colorado courts allow the parent to challenge an order of termination on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel). ¶48 In ord

2020See, e.g., C.H., 166 P.3d at 290–91 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ).

2011Id. at 1131.

2011Id. at 1131.

2020(This unfortunately common procedure is often called an “offer of proof.” See A.R., ¶¶ 89-96 (discussing “offer of proof”).) The parent could show prejudice by claiming he was denied the right to proof by clear and convincing evidence at the termination of parental rights proceeding, as required under section 19-3-604(1) and A.M.D., 648 P.2d at 636 . ¶ 73 Second, a parent could claim that her counsel’s deficient performance prevented the juvenile court from receiving essential information favorable to the parent relating to section 19-3-604’s termination criteria.

2018We conclude that it did. ¶ 29 The child’s status as dependent or neglected is established at the adjudication stage of a dependency or neglect proceeding, and “the resulting adjudication provide[s] the jurisdictional bases for State intervention to assist the parents and child in establishing a relationship and home environment that will preserve the family 11 unit.” People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625, 640 (Colo. 1982); see also People in Interest of J.W. v. C.O., 2017 CO 105, ¶¶ 20, 31 . ¶ 30 If there are procedural errors at the adjudication stage, a parent may challenge these errors

2020See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 753–54 (1982) (noting that parents’ fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children requires states to afford respondent parents fundamentally fair procedures when seeking to terminate parental rights); People in Interest of C.H., 166 P.3d 288 , 290 (Colo. App. 2007) (noting that although a parent’s right to appointed counsel in termination proceedings is statutory and not constitutional, Colorado courts allow the parent to challenge an order of termination on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel). ¶48 In ord

2020See, e.g., C.H., 166 P.3d at 290–91 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ).

2018We conclude that it did. ¶ 29 The child’s status as dependent or neglected is established at the adjudication stage of a dependency or neglect proceeding, and “the resulting adjudication provide[s] the jurisdictional bases for State intervention to assist the parents and child in establishing a relationship and home environment that will preserve the family 11 unit.” People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625, 640 (Colo. 1982); see also People in Interest of J.W. v. C.O., 2017 CO 105, ¶¶ 20, 31 . ¶ 30 If there are procedural errors at the adjudication stage, a parent may challenge these errors

1994In stating that “what is of legal significance in determining the cognizability of a child’s tort claim against a parent is whether the claim ... arises out of the parent’s pursuit of business or employment activities,” Schlessinger, 796 P.2d at 1390 , we expressly stated that this standard provides legal redress “for negligent conduct separate and distinct from the parental relationship....” Id.

1994In stating that “what is of legal significance in determining the cognizability of a child’s tort claim against a parent is whether the claim ... arises out of the parent’s pursuit of business or employment activities,” Schlessinger, 796 P.2d at 1390 , we expressly stated that this standard provides legal redress “for negligent conduct separate and distinct from the parental relationship....” Id.