Peo in Interest of SS

── Peo in Interest of SS ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General 25CA1194 Peo in Interest of SS 05-21-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 25CA1194 Adams County District Court No. 20JV264 Honorable Emily Lieberman, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Appellee, In the Interest of S.S., a Child, and Concerning S.D. and M.S., Appellants. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division VI Opinion by JUDGE YUN Grove and Schock, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 21, 2026 Heidi Miller, County Attorney, Deborah Kershner, Assistant County Attorney, Westminster, Colorado, for Appellee Sheena Knight, Guardian Ad Litem The Morgan Law Office, Kristofr P. Morgan, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Appellant S.D. Robin Tieman, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Boulder, Colorado, for Appellant M.S. ¶1 S.D. (mother) and M.S. (father) appeal the judgment terminating their parent-child legal relationships with S.S. (the child). We affirm. I. Background ¶2 This case has a lengthy history and one previous appeal. People in Interest of S.S., (Colo. App. No. 22CA1012, March 30, 2023) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e)) (S.S. I). The parents have five children, each of whom was separately involved in dependency and neglect proceedings with county departments in Adams and Arapahoe counties and in Delaware. ¶3 Because the division in S.S. I set forth the history of the case, we repeat only the facts and procedural history relevant to this appeal. ¶4 As pertinent here, in S.S. I, the parents appealed the termination judgment. A division of this court reversed the judgment as to mother, concluding that the record did not establish that the Department made reasonable accommodations as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The division affirmed the judgment as to father but remanded for an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. On 1  remand, the juvenile court determined father had received ineffective assistance and vacated the termination judgment. ¶5 Shortly thereafter, the Adams County Human Services Department (the Department) again moved to terminate the parents’ parental rights. At that time, the parents were living in Delaware. Following an eight-day hearing, the court terminated both parents’ parental rights.1 II. Termination Criteria and Standard of Review ¶6 The juvenile court may terminate parental rights if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the child was adjudicated dependent or neglected; (2) the parent has not complied with an appropriate, court-approved 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. ¶7 The question of whether a juvenile court properly terminated parental rights is a mixed question of fact and law. People in 1 At the time of the second termination hearing, parental rights were terminated as to children M.J. and R.S., while the cases involving Ma.S. and G.S. were ongoing. 2  Interest of S.R.N.J-S., 2020 COA 12, ¶ 10. Thus, we review the court’s factual findings for clear error but review de novo its legal conclusions based on those findings. Id. ¶8 “The credibility of the witnesses; the sufficiency, probative value, and weight of the evidence; and the inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidence are within the discretion of the [juvenile] court.” People in Interest of A.M. v. T.M., 2021 CO 14, ¶ 15. We therefore do not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the juvenile court. People in Interest