People in the Interest of S.A.H.
2026 COA 71. No. 25CA2369. Dependency and Neglect—Uniform Parentage Act—Presumption of Paternity—Final Appealable Order—Standing.
September 17, 2026
Mother gave birth to twins (the children) at a hospital. The Denver Department of Human Services (department) received a report that mother tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine and that she and psychological father appeared to be very sleepy at the hospital. The department took temporary custody of the children, filed a petition in dependency or neglect, and placed the children with psychological father’s mother. Psychological father and biological father were listed as alleged fathers on the petition. Biological father asserted a presumption of paternity based on genetic testing results, while psychological father alleged a presumption because he held himself out to be the children’s father. Mother and the children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) supported psychological father’s position. The juvenile court afforded psychological father the presumption but then resolved the conflicting presumptions in favor of biological father, adjudicating him the legal father of the children.
Psychological father and mother appealed. As an initial matter, the court of appeals considered whether the juvenile court’s parentage ruling was a final, appealable order. The court also ordered psychological father to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order. The division agreed with the conclusion (but not the analysis) of the division in People in Interest of N.S., 2017 COA 8, which held that an order resolving paternity between two presumptive fathers in favor of the biological father was final and appealable because it finally resolved all issues as to the party who was declared not to be the legal father. The division here concluded that a parentage order issued in a dependency and neglect case is not final and appealable merely because it constitutes a final judgment as to the party who was declared not to be the legal father. This is because, in general, when there are multiple parties to an action, an order resolving all issues as to only one party is not final and appealable until all claims are resolved as to all parties. The division here concluded that an order may be deemed to be final and appealable when it ends a discrete proceeding within ongoing litigation. Here, when psychological father requested a hearing on the disputed parentage issue, he created a discrete parentage proceeding within the dependency and neglect matter that fully resolved the issue of the children’s parentage. The parentage order is thus final and appealable.
The court next considered whether mother has standing to appeal the parentage order. Standing is a jurisdictional issue that must generally be addressed before reaching the merits. Here, however, the division’s resolution of the propriety of the parentage determination will resolve the parentage issue for all parties, so mother’s participation or nonparticipation in this appeal is of no consequence. In this narrow circumstance, the division concluded it was unnecessary to decide whether mother has standing, so it declined to do so.
On the merits, the record shows that the juvenile court considered the pertinent enumerated factors in CRS § 19-4-105(2)(a) and made findings relating to them before concluding that biological father’s presumption controlled. The parentage determination was not based on a misapplication of the law nor was it manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. Accordingly, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.
The order was affirmed.