People in Interest of C.M.
2024 COA 90. No. 23CA1761. Dependency and Neglect—Environment Injurious to Child’s Welfare—Summary Judgment—Motion for Disqualification.
August 8, 2024
The Montrose County Department of Human Services (department) removed C.M., L.M., M.M., P.M., and D.H. from mother’s home and filed a petition in dependency and neglect, alleging that the children’s environment was injurious to their welfare. The children were placed in three separate foster homes: D.H. in one; P.M. in another; and C.M., M.M., and L.M. in a third. While living in foster care, D.H. tested positive for methamphetamine, indicating that she had been exposed to methamphetamine within the preceding 90 days. D.H. had tested negative for substances at birth. The foster parents and mother tested negative, and although father had tested positive for methamphetamine earlier, D.H. (who is not father’s child) was not in father’s care for any relevant period of time. The department moved for summary judgment as to all five children based on D.H.’s positive test, arguing that D.H.’s exposure to methamphetamine established that her environment was injurious to her welfare, regardless of the source of that exposure, and that D.H.’s positive test meant that the other children were also in an injurious environment or would be if they were returned to the parents’ care. Mother and father opposed the motion. The juvenile court concluded that there was a factual dispute about whether D.H. was exposed to methamphetamine while in mother’s care or in foster care. But it concluded that parental fault is not required to sustain an adjudication based on an injurious environment, so the dispute was immaterial because D.H.’s exposure established that her environment was injurious to her welfare, regardless of who was at fault for the exposure. It then imputed that injurious environment to the other children, even though they were living in different homes at the time. Mother and father jointly moved for reconsideration and moved to disqualify the department and the county attorney on the ground that their conduct in the case demonstrated bias and a conflict of interest. The court denied both motions and subsequently entered an order adopting the department’s proposed treatment plans and ordering the children to remain in the department’s custody.
On appeal, mother and father argued that the juvenile court erred by adjudicating the children dependent or neglected based on D.H.’s positive test for methamphetamine, despite its conclusion that D.H.’s exposure could have occurred while in foster care. When a child has been removed from the parents’ care, the relevant environment for purposes of an adjudication of dependency or neglect under CRS § 19-3-102(1)(c) is the one the child would be in if returned to the parents, not the child’s environment while in the physical custody of the department. Here, there was a genuine factual dispute as to whether D.H.’s exposure occurred in foster care or the parents’ care. And D.H.’s exposure to methamphetamine had no bearing on the other children’s environments. Therefore, the juvenile court erred by granting summary judgment.
Mother also asserted that the juvenile court erroneously denied her and father’s joint motion to disqualify the department and the county attorney. Here, there were no grounds for disqualification, so the juvenile court did not err.
The summary judgment order adjudicating the children dependent or neglected was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The order denying the parents’ motion for disqualification was affirmed.