Peo in Interest of RG

── Peo in Interest of RG ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General 25CA1875 Peo in Interest of RG 05-21-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 25CA1875 Weld County District Court No. 23JV104 Honorable Troy Hause, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, In the Interest of R.G. IV and M.G., Children, and Concerning N.S., Appellant and Cross-Appellee, and R.L.G. III, Appellee and Cross-Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division IV Opinion by JUDGE SCHUTZ Freyre and Brown, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 21, 2026 No Appearance for Petitioner Josi McCauley, Counsel for Youth, Superior, Colorado, for R.G. IV and M.G. Andrew A. Gargano, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant and Cross Appellee Robin Tieman, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Boulder, Colorado, for Appellee and Cross-Appellant ¶1 In this dependency and neglect action, N.S. (mother) appeals the judgment allocating parental responsibilities of R.G. IV and M.G. (the youths) between mother and R.G. III (father). We affirm. I. Background ¶2 In 2023, the domestic relations court ordered the Weld County Department of Human Services to conduct an investigation into the family “due to significant concerns of parental conflict and emotional impact to the [youths].” The Department subsequently filed a petition in dependency or neglect, raising concerns about domestic violence between mother and her partner and escalating conflict between mother and father. The juvenile court adjudicated the youths — then ten and eleven years old — dependent or neglected and adopted treatment plans for both parents. ¶3 The youths were initially placed with mother. However, nine months later it was discovered that mother had been violating the protective orders by allowing her partner to be in the home with the youths. At that point, the juvenile court granted temporary custody of the youths to father, where they remained for the rest of the dependency action, with mother having significant parenting time. 1 ¶4 Two years after the petition was filed, father moved to allocate parental responsibilities and close the dependency or neglect action. After a contested hearing, the juvenile court issued a detailed allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) order. As relevant here, the APR (1) designated father as the primary custodian during the school year; (2) granted mother unsupervised parenting time from after school Thursdays to before school Mondays for three weeks per month; (3) established a week-on/week-off parenting time schedule for the summer; (4) allocated decision-making for routine medical, dental, and eye care to mother; and (5) allocated joint decision-making responsibility for education, major medical decisions, and extracurricular activities that impact both parents’ parenting time. II. Standard of Review and Applicable Law ¶5 Allocating parental responsibilities is a matter within the sound discretion of the juvenile court. See In re B.R.D., 2012 COA 63, ¶ 15. When there is record support for the juvenile court’s findings, its resolution of conflicting evidence is binding on review. Id. However, whether a court has applied the correct legal standard presents a question of law that we review de novo. Id. 2 ¶6 The juvenile court has exclusive authority to determine the legal custody of, or enter an APR judgment with respect to, a child within its jurisdiction. § 19-1-104(1)(c), C.R.S. 2025; L.A.G. v. People in Interest of A.A.G., 912 P.2d 1385, 1389 (Colo. 1996). ¶7 Although the juvenile court must allocate parental responsibilities to best serve “the interests of the child