Peo in Interest of VS-J

── Peo in Interest of VS-J ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General 25CA1832 Peo in Interest of VS-J 04-16-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 25CA1832 Arapahoe County District Court No. 22JV30165 Honorable Bonnie McLean, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Appellee, In the Interest of V.S-J., a Child, and Concerning M.H. and D.J., Appellants. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division VII Opinion by JUDGE PAWAR Johnson and Gomez, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced April 16, 2026 Ron Carl, County Attorney, Alison A. Bettenberg, Assistant County Attorney, Aurora, Colorado, for Appellee Sheena Knight, Guardian Ad Litem Robin Tieman, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Boulder, Colorado, for Appellant M.H. The Morgan Law Office, Kristofr P. Morgan, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Appellant D.J. ¶1 D.J. (father) and M.H. (mother) appeal the judgment terminating their parent-child legal relationships with V.S-J. (the child). We affirm. I. Background ¶2 In July 2021, the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services received a report that mother was using illicit substances while caring for the child and exposing the child to unsafe individuals. The Department opened a voluntary case and enacted a safety plan in which the child was placed with father and C.J. (paternal grandmother). More than a year later, the Department filed a petition in dependency or neglect because father was not adequately engaging in the case and mother continued to use illicit substances. ¶3 In November 2022, the parents made no-fault admissions to the petition, and the juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent or neglected. The court then adopted treatment plans for the parents. Mother’s treatment plan required her to address substance abuse and mental health and abstain from criminal activity, while father’s treatment plan required him to provide for the child’s mental health and medical needs and demonstrate 1  protective parenting. Both plans also required the parents to provide the child with a safe and stable home, attend family time, participate in parenting education, and cooperate with the Department and the professionals in the case. ¶4 In September 2023, the Department moved to terminate the parents’ parental rights. The juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing, after which it denied the motion to terminate because the Department did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the parents were unlikely to become fit within a reasonable time. ¶5 More than a year later, the Department again moved to terminate the parents’ parental rights. The juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing over three days between April and August 2025. After hearing the evidence, the court terminated the parent-child legal relationships between the parents and the child. II. Termination of Parental Rights ¶6 The parents assert that the juvenile court erred by terminating their parental rights. We disagree. A. Termination Criteria and Standard of Review ¶7 A juvenile court may terminate parental rights if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the child has been 2  adjudicated dependent or neglected; (2) the parent has not reasonably complied with an appropriate treatment plan or the plan has not been 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. 2025. ¶8 Whether a juvenile court properly terminated parental rights presents a mixed question of law and fact because it involves application of the termination statute to evidentiary facts. People in Interest of A.M. v. T.