Peo in Interest of AJ

── Peo in Interest of AJ ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General 25CA1987 Peo in Interest of AJ 05-21-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 25CA1987 Douglas County District Court No. 22JV91 Honorable H. Clay Hurst, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Appellee, In the Interest of A.J., a Child, and Concerning S.J., Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART Division IV Opinion by JUDGE WELLING Schock and Lum, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 21, 2026 Jeffrey A. Garcia, County Attorney, Kathryn Cherry, Assistant County Attorney, Castle Rock, Colorado, for Appellee Josie L. Burt, Guardian Ad Litem Patrick R. Henson, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Justin Twardowski, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 S.J. (father) appeals the judgment entered on a jury verdict adjudicating A.J. (the child) dependent and neglected. Father also appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order adopting a treatment plan for him. We affirm the adjudication and dismiss as moot the portion of the appeal challenging the treatment plan. I. Background ¶2 In September 2022, the Douglas County Department of Human Services received a referral that the child’s two-month-old sibling had suffered a fatal “non-accidental” head injury while in father’s care. The Department then filed a petition in dependency and neglect alleging concerns of physical abuse and neglect of the child. ¶3 Father denied the allegations and requested an adjudicatory jury trial. After a three-day trial, the jury returned special verdicts finding that the child lacked proper parental care as a result of father’s acts or failures to act and that her environment was injurious to her welfare. See § 19-3-102(1)(b), (c), C.R.S. 2025. Based on the verdicts, the juvenile court adjudicated the child 1  dependent and neglected. Two years later, the juvenile court adopted a treatment plan for father without objection.1 II. Jury Instructions ¶4 Father contends that the juvenile court erred by giving the jury an instruction defining “abuse” and “child abuse or neglect.” We decline to address this argument because it isn’t preserved. ¶5 During the adjudicatory hearing, father’s counsel asked the juvenile court to instruct the jury that “[a] medical diagnosis of child abuse by a medical provider differs from the legal element of the criminal offense of child abuse.” Father’s counsel also acknowledged that “the jury’s [going to] be told what the definition of ‘abuse’ is.” The Department proposed the following instruction: “Abuse” or “child abuse or neglect” means an act or omission in one of the following categories that threatens the health or welfare of a child: any case in which a child exhibits evidence of skin bruising, bleeding, 1 The juvenile court initially found that no appropriate treatment plan could be devised for father. See § 19-3-508(1)(e)(I), C.R.S. 2025 (permitting a court to find that an appropriate treatment plan cannot be devised due to a parent’s unfitness under section 19-3- 604(1)(b), C.R.S. (2025)); § 19-3-604(1)(b)(IV) (listing “[s]erious bodily injury or death of a sibling due to proven parental abuse or neglect” as a basis for parental unfitness). Following father’s acquittal on all criminal charges related to the sibling’s death, however, the court adopted a treatment plan for him. 2  malnutrition, failure to thrive, burns, fracture of any bone, subdural hematoma, soft tissue swelling, or death and either: Such condition