People in Interest of H.L.B.
2025 COA 86. No. 24CA1786. Dependency and Neglect—Termination of Parent-Child Legal Relationship—Criteria for Termination—Less Dramatic Alternatives—Allocation of Parental Responsibilities.
November 6, 2025
The Mesa County Department of Human Services (the department) filed a petition in dependency or neglect for child H.L.B. based on concerns about mother’s substance dependence. The juvenile court adjudicated H.L.B. dependent and neglected, and it adopted a treatment plan for mother requiring her to address her mental health and substance dependence and to maintain a relationship with H.L.B. A year after the treatment plan was adopted, the department moved to terminate mother’s parental rights. The juvenile court found that mother had not complied with her treatment plan and that the department had proved that the statutory criteria for termination had been met. However, the court also found that an allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) was a less drastic alternative to termination and that an APR was in H.L.B.’s best interests. The court thus denied the department’s motion.
On appeal, the department and the guardian ad litem argued that the juvenile court erred by denying the motion to terminate parental rights. They asserted that granting the motion was mandatory because H.L.B.’s placement provider at the time of the termination hearing was not willing to participate in an APR, so there was not a less drastic alternative to termination available at the time. Whether a less drastic alternative is available and is in the child’s best interests is a fact-intensive, case-specific inquiry entitled to deference. The current availability of a less drastic alternative to termination is one of many factors a juvenile court may consider in assessing whether a less drastic alternative is in a child’s best interests. When assessing the less drastic alternative factor, a juvenile court may consider whether the alternative legal disposition—here, an APR—is available and is in a child’s best interests, even when the specific terms of a proposed APR, including the specific provider, are not before the court. Here, the only identified barrier to an APR was H.L.B.’s current placement provider’s expressed hesitation to be a party to an APR, but the current placement provider’s expressed preference for adoption does not make an APR unavailable. The juvenile court found that an APR was a less drastic alternative to termination because it met H.L.B.’s primary need of maintaining a relationship with mother. The juvenile court also found that the statutory criteria for termination were satisfied, and those findings were not undisputed, so the propriety of the juvenile court’s motion denial depends on whether its determination that the less drastic alternative was in H.L.B.’s best interests is supported by the record. Based on this case record, notably evidence of the strong relationship between A.S. and mother, the juvenile court did not err in determining that an APR was an available less drastic alternative to termination and was in H.L.B.’s best interests.
The order denying the department’s motion to terminate and requiring the dependency and neglect action to remain open was affirmed.