Peo in Interest of GA

── Peo in Interest of GA ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General 25CA1886 Peo in Interest of GA 05-28-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 25CA1886 Rio Grande County District Court No. 24JV30005 Honorable Michael A. Gonzales, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Appellee, In the Interest of G.A., a Child, and Concerning C.V. a/k/a C.A., Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division V Opinion by JUDGE SCHUTZ Lipinsky and Yun, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 28, 2026 Ryan Dunn, County Attorney, Del Norte, Colorado, for Appellee Jenna L. Mazzucca, Guardian Ad Litem Beth Padilla, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Durango, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 C.V. (mother) appeals the judgment terminating her parent- child legal relationship with G.A. (the child). We affirm. I. Background ¶2 The Rio Grande County Department of Social Services received a report that mother and father found their then-two-month-old child’s twin brother, J.A., unresponsive and took him to a hospital. J.A. was airlifted to Children’s Hospital in Colorado Springs, where medical staff discovered evidence of substantial head trauma, including brain bleeds and a skull fracture. The medical personnel also discovered that the child had multiple healing rib fractures — an indicia of nonaccidental trauma. ¶3 Based on the treatment team’s suspicion that the children’s injuries were the result of nonaccidental trauma, the Department filed a petition in dependency or neglect. Ten days later, J.A. died of his injuries. The Department initially placed the child in foster care and then with mother’s sister (aunt), with whom she remained for the duration of this case. ¶4 Both parents admitted that the child had been subjected to an injurious environment, and the juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent or neglected. Before mother’s admission, the court 1  advised her that the Department believed that there was no appropriate treatment plan that could be devised for either parent, and that it intended to move for termination of parental rights. ¶5 Less than two months after the Department filed the petition, it moved to terminate parental rights and for a combined dispositional and termination hearing. The Department asked the juvenile court to find that no appropriate treatment plan could be devised for the parents. See § 19-3-508(1)(e)(I), C.R.S. 2025; § 19-3-604(1)(b)(II), (IV), (VII), C.R.S. 2025. ¶6 Later, both parents were arrested and charged with criminal child abuse (knowingly/recklessly causing death) and child abuse (knowingly/recklessly causing serious bodily injury (SBI)). After additional investigation, the criminal charges against father were dismissed. Father was subsequently deported to Mexico, although he remained a party to the proceedings and attended court hearings remotely. The juvenile court later granted the Department’s request to withdraw the termination motion as to father. ¶7 Nearly nine months after the petition was filed, the court held a two-day evidentiary hearing. Mother’s criminal charges were still pending at the time of the hearing. Four months later, the court 2  entered a written order concluding that no reasonable treatment plan could be devised for mother and terminated her parental rights. ¶8 On appeal, mother argues that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family and that there were less drastic alternatives to termination of her parental rights. Specifically, mother argues that placement of the child with either aunt or father would have allowed mother’s parental rights to remain in place while serving the child’s best interests. We