Peo in Interest of Fairchild

── Peo in Interest of Fairchild ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General 26CA0234 Peo in Interest of Fairchild 04-16-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 26CA0234 City and County of Broomfield District Court No. 25MH11 Honorable Jeffrey Smith, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, In the Interest of Kenneth Fairchild, Respondent-Appellant. ORDER AFFIRMED Division VII Opinion by JUDGE GOMEZ Pawar and Johnson, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced April 16, 2026 Nancy D. Rodgers, City and County Attorney, Courtney Thiemann, Senior Assistant City and County Attorney, Broomfield, Colorado, for Petitioner- Appellee Tezak Law, P.C., Mary Tezak, Florence, Colorado, for Respondent-Appellant ¶1 Respondent, Kenneth Fairchild, appeals the district court’s order extending his certification for long-term mental health treatment at the Colorado Mental Health Hospital at Fort Logan (Fort Logan). We affirm. I. Background ¶2 In August 2023, Fairchild was admitted to the Colorado Mental Health Hospital in Pueblo (the hospital) for restoration treatment after being found incompetent to proceed in a criminal case. About a year and a half later, the criminal court ordered that Fairchild be evaluated for a civil commitment, and the hospital petitioned for short-term mental health treatment. Providers at the hospital reported that Fairchild had displayed a “persistent and complex persecutory delusional system,” including beliefs that he was being remotely monitored, was being stalked, and had devices implanted in his body. ¶3 In April 2025, hospital providers requested that Fairchild’s short-term certification be extended. A few months later, the criminal court dismissed Fairchild’s criminal charges, finding that he could not be restored to competency. Hospital providers then petitioned for long-term mental health treatment, alleging that 1  Fairchild was a danger to others and gravely disabled. Fairchild stipulated to the long-term certification, which the court entered in July 2025. ¶4 In October 2025, Fairchild was transferred from the hospital to Fort Logan. Fairchild’s treating physician at Fort Logan then requested an extension of the long-term certification. The district court held a hearing in January 2026, at which Dr. Jaclyn Bala (one of Fairchild’s treating physicians) and Fairchild testified. After hearing the evidence, the court found that Fairchild was a danger to others and gravely disabled, and it granted the request for an extension of the long-term certification. This appeal followed. II. Long-Term Certification ¶5 Fairchild asserts that the district court erred by extending the long-term certification because he was not a danger to others or gravely disabled. We are not persuaded. ¶6 When a patient challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we must affirm if the evidence, viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the People, is sufficient to support the order. People in Interest of R.K.L., 2016 COA 84, ¶ 13. As the fact finder, the district court determines the sufficiency, probative effect, and weight of the 2  evidence, along with the inferences and conclusions to be drawn from it. People in Interest of R.C., 2019 COA 99M, ¶ 7. We must defer to the district court’s factual findings if they have record support, but we review its legal conclusions de novo. R.K.L., ¶ 13. ¶7 To authorize long-term certification for mental health treatment, the district court must find, among other things, that the patient has a mental health disorder and, as a result of that disorder, is (1) a danger to others; (2) a danger to themself; or (3) gravely disa