Peo in Interest of DJC

── Peo in Interest of DJC ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General 25CA1836 Peo in Interest of DJC 04-16-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 25CA1836 El Paso County District Court No. 23JV30679 Honorable Robin Chittum, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Appellee, In the Interest of D.J.C., a Child, and Concerning B.W. and M.C., Appellants. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division VI Opinion by JUDGE YUN Grove and Schock, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced April 16, 2026 Kenneth R. Hodges, County Attorney, Melanie E. Gavisk, Senior County Attorney, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Appellee Josi McCauley, Guardian Ad Litem Patrick R. Henson, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Justin Twardowski, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant B.W. The Morgan Law Office, Kristofr P. Morgan, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Appellant M.C. ¶1 In this dependency and neglect action, B.W. (mother) and M.C. (father) appeal the judgment terminating their parental rights to D.J.C. (the child). They each contend that they received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the juvenile court erred by finding that the El Paso County Department of Human Services (the Department) made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate them. Father also contends that the juvenile court erred by finding that he could not become fit within a reasonable time. We disagree with each of these claims and affirm the judgment. I. Background ¶2 The Department filed a petition in dependency and neglect alleging that the child tested positive for methamphetamines at birth. The petition further alleged that mother and father had an ongoing dependency and neglect action with the child’s two older sisters. ¶3 The juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent and neglected and adopted treatment plans for both parents. The Department later moved to terminate both parents’ parental rights. Two years after the petition was filed, the juvenile court terminated mother’s and father’s parental rights after a contested hearing. 1  II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ¶4 Mother and father contend that their respective counsel were ineffective because they failed to subpoena the Department caseworker to testify at the termination hearing. We disagree. A. Applicable Law ¶5 A parent has a statutory right to the effective assistance of counsel in dependency and neglect proceedings. §§ 19-1-105(2), 19-3-202(1), C.R.S. 2025; A.R. v. D.R., 2020 CO 10, ¶ 47. A parent may raise an ineffective assistance claim for the first time on appeal. People in Interest of C.H., 166 P.3d 288, 291 (Colo. App. 2007). ¶6 To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a parent must show that (1) “counsel’s performance was outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance,” and (2) “there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” A.R., ¶¶ 48, 60; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). “If the parent fails to establish either prong of this test, the claim fails.” People in Interest of C.B., 2019 COA 168, ¶ 26. 2 ¶7 Applying this standard, we remand the case for further factual findings only if the parent’s allegations are “sufficiently specific to constitute a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel.” A.R., ¶ 63. If the allegations lack sufficient specificity or do not meet this standard, we may summarily deny the claim. Id. B. Additional Background ¶8 The caseworker was placed on administrative leave shortly b