Peo in Interest of IC

── Peo in Interest of IC ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General 25CA2235 Peo in Interest of IC 05-14-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 25CA2235 City and County of Denver Juvenile Court No. 25JV30395 Honorable Ann Gail Meinster, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, In the Interest of I.C., Z.C., D.C., T.C., M.C., E.C., and N.C., Children, and Concerning A.A. f/k/a M.M.C., Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division IV Opinion by JUDGE LUM Welling and Schock, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 14, 2026 Miko Brown, City Attorney, Christina R. Kinsella, Assistant City Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner Debra W. Dodd, Counsel for Youth, Berthoud, Colorado, for I.C. Debra W. Dodd, Guardian Ad Litem, for Z.C., D.C., T.C., M.C., E.C., and N.C. Michael Kovaka, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Littleton, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 In this dependency or neglect action, the children’s parent, A.A. (formerly known as M.M.C.), appeals the judgment entered on a jury’s verdict adjudicating I.C., Z.C., D.C., T.C., M.C., E.C., and N.C. (the children) dependent or neglected. We affirm. I. Background ¶2 Denver Human Services (the Department) filed a petition in dependency or neglect based on concerns that the children were living in a van with A.A. and the children’s other parent, R.H. (mother); that the older children were not enrolled in or attending school; and that the children were dirty and hungry. The seven children ranged in age from eighteen months to twelve years old. ¶3 A.A. denied the allegations and requested an adjudicatory jury trial. After a six-day trial, the jury returned special verdicts finding that all seven children were dependent or neglected under section 19-3-102(1)(b)-(d), C.R.S. 2025. The jury unanimously determined that (1) all seven children lacked proper parental care as a result of A.A.’s acts or failures to act; (2) the children’s environment was injurious to their welfare; and (3) A.A. failed or refused to provide the children with proper or necessary subsistence, education, 1  medical care, or any other care necessary for the children’s health, guidance, or well-being. II. Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶4 A.A. contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. We aren’t persuaded. A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law ¶5 In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain an adjudication of dependency or neglect, we review the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and we draw every inference “fairly deducible” from the evidence in favor of the jury’s decision. People in Interest of S.G.L., 214 P.3d 580, 583 (Colo. App. 2009); People in Interest of T.T., 128 P.3d 328, 331 (Colo. App. 2005). ¶6 We will not reverse the jury’s verdict even if reasonable people might arrive at different conclusions based on the same facts. S.G.L., 214 P.3d at 583. ¶7 The purpose of an adjudicatory hearing is to determine the child’s status as dependent or neglected under section 19-3-102 and whether that status warrants governmental intervention. People in Interest of N.G., 2012 COA 131, ¶ 39; see also K.D. v. 2  People, 139 P.3d 695, 699 (Colo. 2006) (noting that the adjudication is not made as to the parents but relates only to the child’s status). ¶8 As relevant here, a child is dependent or neglected when (1) the child lacks proper parental care through the actions or omissions of the parent; (2) the child’s environment is injurious to their welfare; and (3) a parent fails or refuses to provide the child with proper or necessary subsistence, education, med