Peo in Interest of H-SKR

── Peo in Interest of H-SKR ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General 25CA2046 Peo in Interest of H-SKR 05-07-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 25CA2046 City and County of Denver Juvenile Court No. 23JV30929 Honorable Laurie Clark, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Appellee, In the Interest of H-S.K.R., a Child, and Concerning J.R., Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division I Opinion by JUDGE FOX J. Jones and Dunn, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 7, 2026 Miko Brown, City Attorney, Amy J. Packer, Assistant City Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee Josi McCauley, Guardian Ad Litem Robin Tieman, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Boulder Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 In this dependency and neglect proceeding, J.R. (mother) appeals the judgment terminating her parent-child legal relationship with H-S.K.R. (the child). We affirm. I. Background ¶2 The Denver Department of Human Services received a report that mother had gone to a hospital claiming to be pregnant when she was not. Mother later returned to the hospital, stating that she was in active labor. Hospital staff placed her on a mental health hold and reported that she appeared disengaged from her then three-year-old child and disinterested in the child’s basic care. The Department removed the child and filed a petition in dependency and neglect. ¶3 The juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent and neglected. The court adopted a treatment plan for mother requiring her to (1) provide active, stable parenting, including through family time; and (2) address her mental health to ensure a safe environment for the child. The court later ordered mother to take a hair follicle test and added a substance use component to her treatment plan. 1 ¶4 The court appointed an attorney for mother during the first hearing in the case. At the second hearing, it granted her counsel’s request to appoint mother a guardian ad litem (GAL). While the court did not explain why it was appointing a GAL for mother, it later found that she had a “disability” or a “mental health disability.” ¶5 Mother’s counsel and her GAL asked to withdraw from the case multiple times. The court denied her counsel’s first withdrawal request. At that point, mother’s GAL noted that mother had directed the GAL and counsel not to contact mother in any way. Later, both mother’s counsel and the GAL moved to withdraw at mother’s request. The court denied the GAL’s motion. After an advisement by the court, mother said that she no longer wished for her attorney to withdraw. ¶6 A year and a half into the case, mother’s counsel and the GAL again moved to withdraw, each citing a breakdown in communication with mother. The court allowed both to withdraw. Around the same time, the Department moved for termination. Mother’s GAL asked the court to appoint a new GAL, but the court instead directed mother’s former counsel to notify the office of 2  respondents’ parent counsel (ORPC) of mother’s withdrawal requests and the termination motion: [Mother’s former counsel,] if you will just let ORPC know that [mother] has asked for the withdrawal of both attorney and guardian ad litem and that there’s a . . . motion for termination pending. So if you’ll at least put them on notice, I’d appreciate that. . . . I know everybody would like to help [mother] the best they can, and [mother] is struggling to accept that help, but if there is a way that ORPC can engage her indirectly, that would be great, and I’d be happy to appoint based on their recommendatio