Peo in Interest of ER

── Peo in Interest of ER ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General 25CA2164 Peo in Interest of ER 05-28-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 25CA2164 Arapahoe County District Court No. 22JV414 Honorable Shay Whitaker, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Appellee, In the Interest of E.R. and Z.L., Children, and Concerning A.B., 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 28, 2026 John Christofferson, Interim County Attorney, Tamra White, Assistant County Attorney, Aurora, Colorado, for Appellee Robert G. Tweedell, Guardian Ad Litem Michael Kovaka, Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, Littleton, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 A.B. (mother) appeals the judgment terminating her parent- child legal relationships with E.R. and Z.L. (the children). She contends that the juvenile court erred by finding she was unfit and not likely to become fit within a reasonable time. We affirm. I. Background ¶2 In September 2022, the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services filed a petition in dependency and neglect concerning the children, who were then three years old and one year old.1 The petition alleged that mother had reportedly been leaving the children unattended and engaging in “increasingly aggressive and erratic” behavior, including “threaten[ing] to kill [a] staff member” at the shelter where the family was staying. ¶3 The juvenile court entered a deferred adjudication for mother, which the Department moved to revoke nearly a year later. After a hearing, the court granted the revocation motion and adjudicated the children dependent and neglected. The court adopted a treatment plan for mother requiring her to (1) attend family time consistently; (2) address her mental health; (3) maintain 1 The petition also concerned the children’s four other siblings, who are not at issue in this appeal. 1  employment or receive other legal income; (4) provide stable housing for the children; and (5) communicate with the caseworker. ¶4 Five months later, the Department moved to terminate mother’s parent-child legal relationships with the children. After a hearing in September 2025, the juvenile court granted the motion. II. Compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) ¶5 Mother asserts that the juvenile court failed to make an inquiry into whether the children were Indian children in connection with the termination proceedings. We disagree. ¶6 At the commencement of each emergency, voluntary, or involuntary child custody proceeding, the court must ask each participant whether “the participant knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child or whether the participant has information that is relevant to determining whether the child is an Indian child.” § 19-1.2-107(2), C.R.S. 2025; see 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(a) (2025). This means the court must ordinarily make (1) an initial inquiry at the commencement of the dependency and neglect proceeding and (2) a second inquiry when termination is sought. People in Interest of C.A., 2017 COA 135, ¶¶ 2, 10; see also § 19-1.2-125(1), C.R.S. 2025 (“Upon the filing of a motion to 2  terminate . . . , the court shall make a finding, subject to the procedures described in section 19-1.2-107(2) and (3), regarding whether there is reason to know that the child is an Indian child.”).2 ¶7 In this case, mother’s counsel reported at the temporary custody hearing that mother “may have Native American ancestry from a tribe in Florida.” Based on this general assertion of heritage, the Department sent notices to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and the Seminole Tribe of