People in the Interest of A.F.
2025 COA 76. No. 25CA0033. Dependency and Neglect—Caseworker Expert Testimony—Findings Under People v. Shreck—CRE 702—Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time.
September 4, 2025
The Arapahoe County Department of Human Services (department) filed a petition in dependency or neglect alleging that mother was not providing her child, A.F., proper parental care and that A.F. was in an injurious environment. Mother moved pretrial to exclude expert testimony from department caseworkers as unreliable, unhelpful, and unduly prejudicial. Alternatively, she requested a hearing under People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68 (Colo. 2001), and specific findings on the reliability and relevance of the proposed expert opinions. The juvenile court denied mother’s hearing request, noting that, unlike the challenged testimony in Shreck, the testimony here did not concern scientific evidence. The court also deferred findings on whether the evidence was reliable, relevant, and not unfairly prejudicial until trial, when the witnesses would be tendered as experts and mother’s counsel could conduct voir dire. At trial, the department offered three caseworkers as experts in “casework with an emphasis in child protection.” Mother objected to each witness under CRE 702, but the juvenile court overruled the objections. The caseworkers testified, and a jury returned special verdicts finding that A.F.’s environment was injurious to her welfare and that she lacked proper parental care through mother’s actions or omissions. The juvenile court adjudicated A.F. dependent or neglected and entered a dispositional order adopting a treatment plan for mother
On appeal, mother argued that the juvenile court erred by admitting expert testimony from the three caseworkers without making required Shreck findings. Shreck and CRE 702 govern the admissibility of all expert testimony in Colorado. Under Shreck, the court may hold a pretrial evidentiary hearing, but it need not do so where there is sufficient information in the record to make an admissibility determination without a hearing. The court of appeals clarified that caseworker expert testimony in dependency and neglect proceedings is subject to CRE 702 and Shreck, including the requirement of specific findings as to admissibility. Accordingly, when a parent objects to the admissibility of such testimony under CRE 702, before admitting such testimony, the juvenile court must make specific findings on (1) the reliability of the principles that the testimony is based on; (2) the witnesses’ qualifications; (3) the testimony’s usefulness; and (4) the CRE 403 balancing test. Here, while the court was not necessarily required to hold a hearing, it erred by admitting the testimony without making required findings under CRE 702 and Shreck. Further, it is doubtful that the record would have been sufficient to support the required findings had the juvenile court properly applied CRE 702, so admission of the caseworkers’ expert testimony likely substantially influenced the jury verdict and undermined the fairness of the proceedings. The error was thus not harmless.
The adjudication was reversed, the dispositional order concerning mother was vacated, and the case was remanded for a new adjudicatory trial.