Mesa
County District Court No. 16JV217 Honorable Valerie J.
Robison, Judge
J.
Patrick Coleman, County Attorney, Jeremy Savage, Chief Deputy
County Attorney, Katherine A. Barnes, Assistant County
Attorney, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Appellee
Melinda Guthrie, Guardian Ad Litem Susan C. Baker, Office of
Respondent Parents' Counsel, El Prado, New Mexico, for
Appellant J.G.
Barbara A. Snow, Longmont, Colorado, for Appellant V.M.
Gregory J. Mueller, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Appellant
H.B.
OPINION
ROMÁN JUDGE
¶
1 In this dependency and neglect proceeding, V.M. (mother)
and J.G. (father) appeal the juvenile court's judgment
allocating parental responsibilities for their children,
N.G.G., A.R.G. and S.D.G.
¶
2 Where a juvenile court adjudicates a child dependent and
neglected, thereby removing the legal presumption that a
parent is acting or will act in the child's best
interests, is the presumption restored where the court later
finds that the parent has successfully complied with a
treatment plan and is able to safely parent the child? We
conclude that the answer is "yes." We also conclude
that an order permitting a parent to relocate with a child
without notifying the other parent, if the other parent is
incarcerated, violates the governing statute. For these
reasons, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for
further proceedings.
I.
Dependency and Neglect Case
¶
3 In July 2016, the Mesa County Department of Human Services
(Department) initiated a dependency and neglect case based on
concerns that the paternal grandmother, H.B., who was then
the children's primary legal custodian, had provided
inadequate care. The juvenile court placed the children, then
ages six, five, and three, in mother's custody under the
protective supervision of the Department.
¶
4 Mother and father admitted that the children were dependent
and neglected through no fault of the parents.
¶
5 The court also granted the grandmother's request to be
made a respondent and contest the allegations in the
petition. However, a jury later determined that the
grandmother had mistreated or abused the children or allowed
another to do so; that they lacked proper parental care
because of the grandmother's acts or omissions; that
their environment was injurious to their welfare based on the
grandmother's acts or failure to act; and that they were
without proper care or not domiciled with a parent through no
fault of the grandmother.
¶
6 Based on that verdict, the court adjudicated the children
dependent and neglected based upon the grandmother's
care. It also adopted a treatment plan for the parents and
the grandmother.
¶
7 The Department filed motions seeking a permanent allocation
of parental responsibilities (APR) for the children to
mother, and the juvenile court held a hearing on the
Department's request. After considering the evidence and
the parties' written arguments, the juvenile court
determined that mother had successfully complied with her
treatment plan and issued a permanent APR judgment granting
mother sole decision-making authority for the children and
primary parenting time. The court also
• granted father supervised parenting time;
• awarded the grandmother supervised visitation and
provided for a possible transition to unsupervised
visitation;
• required mother to notify the grandmother of the
children's school-organized extracurricular activities;
• required mother and the grandmother to enroll in and
complete a high-conflict parenting class; and
• granted mother permission to relocate with the
children under certain circumstances.
¶
8 The juvenile court certified the APR judgment into the
parties' ...