Peo in Interest of MBAH

── Peo in Interest of MBAH ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General 25CA1638 Peo in Interest of MBAH 04-16-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 25CA1638 City and County of Denver Juvenile Court No. 24JV30918 Honorable Lisa Gomez, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Appellee, In the Interest of M.B.A.H., a Child, and Concerning M.O.H. III a/k/a M.E.H., Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division IV Opinion by JUDGE BROWN Freyre and Schutz, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced April 16, 2026 Miko Brown, City Attorney, Amy J. Packer, Assistant City Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee Josi McCauley, Guardian Ad Litem Just Law Group, LLC, John F. Poor, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 In this dependency and neglect action, M.O.H. III, aka M.E.H., (father) appeals the judgment entered on a jury verdict adjudicating M.B.A.H. (the child) dependent or neglected. Father also appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order adopting a treatment plan for him. We affirm. I. Background ¶2 Denver Human Services (the Department) received a referral raising concerns that the child was born premature and exposed to substances. The Department opened a voluntary case while the child was in the neonatal intensive care unit. When the child’s medical team began discussing discharge two months later, the Department filed a petition in dependency or neglect, alleging that mother’s and father’s mental health and substance dependence prevented the child from being released into their care. ¶3 Mother admitted the petition and does not participate in this appeal. Father requested an adjudicatory jury trial. After a three-day trial, the jury returned special verdicts finding that the child was dependent or neglected under sections 19-3-102(1)(b), (c), and (d), C.R.S. 2025. The juvenile court adjudicated the child 1  dependent and neglected and, after two treatment plan hearings, adopted a treatment plan for father. II. Jury Instructions ¶4 Father contends that the juvenile court erred by instructing the jury (1) regarding affirmative defenses and (2) that it could consider “any behaviors observed in open court” as evidence. ¶5 Father concedes that he did not preserve either of these issues. Nevertheless, he urges us to address them under the miscarriage of justice exception to the preservation requirement. See People in Interest of E.S., 2021 COA 79, ¶ 14. If an unpreserved error involves a miscarriage of justice, we may consider it for the first time on appeal. In re R.G.B., 98 P.3d 958, 959 (Colo. App. 2004). But the miscarriage of justice exception has a high bar and a narrow scope. People in Interest of M.B., 2020 COA 13, ¶¶ 23-24. We have recognized the exception only in “rare cases, involving unusual or special circumstances, . . . to prevent an unequivocal and manifest injustice.” In re E.R.S., 2019 COA 40, ¶ 38. ¶6 Father does not provide any explanation why the miscarriage of justice exception should apply to the unpreserved instructional issues he raises. We therefore will not consider these claims. See 2  People in Interest of S.Z.S., 2022 COA 105, ¶ 29 (we will not consider an argument when a parent “develops no legal or factual argument in support of th[e] assertion”). III. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ¶7 Father contends that his counsel provided ineffective assistance at the adjudicatory jury trial. We conclude that this claim does not warrant reversal. A. Applicable Law ¶8 To successfully assert a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a parent must show that (1) counsel’s performance was outside the wide