Peo in Interest of IC

── Peo in Interest of IC ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General 25CA2135 Peo in Interest of IC 05-14-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 25CA2135 City and County of Denver Juvenile Court No. 25JV30395 Honorable Lisa Gomez, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Appellee, In the Interest of I.C., Z.C., D.C., T.C., M.C., E.C., and N.C., Children, and Concerning R.O.B.J.C., Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division IV Opinion by JUDGE SCHOCK Welling and Lum, 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 Appellee 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. The Morgan Law Office, Kristofr P. Morgan, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 R.C. (mother) appeals the judgment entered on a jury 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 family was living in a van, 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 Mother denied the allegations and requested an adjudicatory jury trial. After 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 found that (1) the children lacked proper parental care as a result of mother’s acts or failures to act; (2) the children’s environment was injurious to their welfare; and (3) mother failed or refused to provide the children proper or necessary subsistence, education, medical care, or any other care necessary for their health, guidance, or well- being. 1  II. Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) ¶4 Mother first contends that the juvenile court has not complied with ICWA because the Department did not exercise due diligence to determine if the children are Indian children. We disagree. A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review ¶5 ICWA establishes “minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families and the placement of such children in foster or adoptive homes which will reflect the unique values of Indian culture.” 25 U.S.C. § 1902. ICWA applies to dependency and neglect proceedings involving Indian children. People in Interest of E.A.M. v. D.R.M., 2022 CO 42, ¶ 2. Under ICWA, when the court “knows or has reason to know” that a child who is the subject of such a proceeding is an Indian child, the court must ensure that the Department “gives notice of the proceeding to any identified Indian tribes.” Id. at ¶ 3 (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a)). ¶6 A mere assertion of a child’s Indian heritage does not alone give the juvenile court reason to know that a child is an Indian child. E.A.M., ¶ 56. But if the court receives information that the child may have Indian heritage, it must direct the Department to 2  “exercise due diligence in gathering additional information” that would assist the court in determining whether there is reason to know that the child is an Indian child. § 19-1.2-107(4)(a), C.R.S. 2025; see H.J.B. v. People in Interest of A-J.A.B., 2023 CO 48, ¶ 5. ¶7 We review de novo whether ICWA applies to a dependency and neglect case. People in Interest of O.S-H., 2021 COA 130, ¶ 15. B. Additional Background ¶8 Earl