From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People in the Int. of C.R

Colorado Court of Appeals. Division I
Sep 16, 1976
557 P.2d 1225 (Colo. App. 1976)

Opinion

No. 76-058

Decided September 16, 1976. Rehearing denied October 21, 1976.

From trial court's adjudication of four daughters to be neglected or dependent, and from a subsequent decree terminating their mother's parental rights, mother appealed.

Orders Affirmed

1. PARENT AND CHILDDependency or Neglect — Extensive Testimony — Mistreatment of Children — Finding Affirmed. Where extensive testimony established that a man cohabiting with the mother of four daughters had inflicted multiple injuries upon the three younger children over an extended period of time, that the mother's efforts to prevent their mistreatment had been sporadic and unavailing, and that the mother did not seek medical or other assistance for her children following the infliction of injuries, the trial court's finding that the three younger children were neglected or dependent, by virtue of the failure of the mother to prevent their mistreatment, must be affirmed.

2. Finding of Neglect or Dependency — Oldest Child — Not Physically Injured — Proper to Consider — Mistreatment of Other Children — Lack of Proper Parental Care — Reasonable Inference. In trial court's adjudication of four daughters to be neglected or dependent, although physical injury to the oldest child was not shown, it was proper for the court to consider treatment accorded the other children in reaching a conclusion regarding the older daughter, and the court could reasonably infer that the non-abused child lacked proper parental care from the evidence establishing mistreatment of the others.

3. Parental Incompetence — Basis — Dependency or Neglect Finding — Not Alleged in Petition — Not Improper — Evidence On That Issue — Received Without Objection. Although the mother's incompetence as a parent was not alleged in dependency or neglect petition, the trial court did not act improperly in adjudicating the eldest child neglected or dependent on that basis, since, during the adjudicatory hearing, considerable evidence raising the issue of the mother's competence was received without objection.

4. Termination of Parental Rights — Requisite Findings — Stated. In decreeing termination of parental rights, a trial court must find that the conditions which resulted in the earlier determination of dependency will in all probability continue into the future, and that under no reasonable circumstances would the welfare of the children be served by a continuation of the parent-child relationship, and, in addition, the trial court must give due regard to the past history of parental custody, and must also explore alternatives to termination which might result in successful continuation of the parent-child relationship.

5. Termination of Parental Rights — Failure of Trial Court — Phrase Findings — In Language of Previous Decisions — Not Determinative — Their Adequacy. The failure of the trial court in a dispositional hearing concerning termination of parental rights to phrase its findings in the language of previous decisions is not determinative, so long as the findings entered address the probable continuance of the existing deleterious conditions and the absence of reasonable alternatives to termination of parental rights.

Appeal from the District Court of Prowers County, Honorable Robert Sanderson, Judge.

Harlan Johnson, for petitioners-appellees.

Tom O'Neill, Randall J. Kries, for respondent-appellant.


This is an appeal by the mother (E.L.) of four daughters (C.R., F.J.L., M.A.L., and C.B.L.) from a decree terminating her parental rights. In early 1975, E.L.'s daughters, ranging in age from four months to six years, were removed from her custody by the county department of social services. The reason for removal was the allegation that she had abused them or had permitted their mistreatment by another person. The children were subsequently adjudicated to be neglected or dependent, the three younger girls due to child abuse, and the eldest on a finding that E.L. was incompetent to provide her with reasonable care. See § 19-1-103(20)(a) (b), C.R.S. 1973. At the later dispositional hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating E.L.'s parental rights as to all four girls.

E.L. challenges both the order of termination and the earlier adjudication of dependency. We affirm.

I. The Dependency Determination

[1] We do not agree with E.L.'s contention that the trial court erred in adjudicating her daughters to be neglected or dependent. Extensive evidence established that a man cohabiting with E.L. had inflicted multiple injuries upon the three younger children over an extended period of time. Some testimony supported E.L.'s claim that she had sought to prevent their mistreatment, but that evidence also indicated that those efforts had been sporadic and unavailing. It was also shown that E.L. did not seek medical or other assistance for her children following the inflicting of injuries. Under these circumstances, the trial court's finding that the three younger children were neglected or dependent, due to the failure of E.L. to prevent their mistreatment, must be affirmed. See § 19-3-106(6)(a), C.R.S. 1973; People in the Interest of R.K. and S.K., 31 Colo. App. 459, 505 P.2d 37 (1972).

In support of her argument that there was error in adjudicating the oldest daughter, C.R., to be neglected or dependent, E.L. emphasizes the absence of evidence of physical injury to that child. As to the finding regarding her incompetency as a parent, she asserts error occurred because the dependency petition only alleged mistreatment, not incompetency. These arguments are not well taken.

[2,3] Although physical injury to C.R. was not shown, it was proper for the trial court to consider treatment accorded the other children in reaching a conclusion regarding the non-abused daughter. See In re Dunagan, 74 Wash. 2d 807, 447 P.2d 87 (1968). The trial court could reasonably infer that the non-abused child lacked proper parental care from the evidence establishing mistreatment of the others. In the Matter of P.N., 533 P.2d 13 (Alas. 1975); In re Miller, 40 Wash. 2d 319, 242 P.2d 1016 (1952). Furthermore, although E.L.'s incompetency as a parent was not alleged in the petition, the trial court did not act improperly in adjudicating C.R. neglected or dependent on that basis. During the adjudicatory hearing, considerable evidence raising the issue of E.L.'s competence was received without objection, putting into question her ability to provide proper parental care for her daughters. Thus, the issue was properly raised. See C.R.J.P. 1; C.R.C.P. 15(b).

E.L. acknowledges the existence of evidence of her incompetence. She contends, however, that the trial court's finding in this regard was erroneous. This contention is not supported by the record. At the time of the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court was aware of E.L.'s limited mental capacity, and had heard evidence demonstrating her inability to perceive or cope with the injuries inflicted upon her children. Under these circumstances, the trial court properly found all four children to be neglected or dependent.

II. Termination of Parental Rights

E.L. also contends that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights following the consequent dispositional hearing. She argues that the trial court failed to consider realistic alternatives to termination which were shown to exist by the evidence, and that the trial court's findings in support of termination do not comply with those outlined by the Colorado Supreme Court in People in the Interest of M.M., 184 Colo. 298, 520 P.2d 128 (1974). We do not agree.

[4] In decreeing termination of parental rights, a trial court must find that the conditions which resulted in the earlier determination of dependency will in all probability continue into the future, and that under no reasonable circumstances would the welfare of the children be served by a continuation of the parent-child relationship. People in the Interest of M.B. and M.B., 188 Colo. 370, 535 P.2d 192 (1975); People in the Interest of M.M., supra. See also People in the Interest of K.S. and M.S., 33 Colo. App. 72, 515 P.2d 130 (1973). In addition, in seeking to achieve the course of action which is in the best interests of the children, the trial court must give due regard to the past history of parental custody, and must also explore alternatives to termination which might result in successful continuation of the parent-child relationship. People in the Interest of M.M., supra; People in the Interest of K.S. and M.S., supra.

E.L. contends that the trial court failed to consider several such alternative remedies which she claims were established by the evidence at the dispositional hearing. Each of the proposed alternatives involved placing E.L. and the children under professional or lay supervision where she underwent training to increase her mental capability. However, the court had before it testimony indicating that it was unlikely that any amount of training would, within a reasonable period, appreciably enhance E.L.'s mental abilities. Thus, the trial court's negative finding on that issue, which was amply supported by the evidence, satisfactorily eliminated the suggested alternatives to termination.

[5] The failure of the trial court to phrase its findings in the language of previous decisions is not determinative, so long as the findings entered addressed the probable continuance of the existing deleterious conditions and the absence of reasonable alternatives to termination. People in the Interest of C.O., 36 Colo. App. 298, 541 P.2d 330 (1975). The trial court had before it substantial evidence that E.L.'s past and projected domestic conduct, coupled with her limited intelligence, would in all likelihood continue to place her daughters in a position of substantial potential harm. Under these circumstances, the findings entered were sufficient to support an order of termination. People in the Interest of K.S. and M.S., supra.

Because the evidence justified the trial court's conclusion that improvement of E.L.'s retardation did not represent a realistic alternative to termination, we do not reach her contention that she has a substantive constitutional and statutory right to receive such remedial training at public expense. See In re Susan Lynn M., 53 Cal. App. 3d 300, 125 Cal. Rptr. 707 (1975).

Orders affirmed.

JUDGE COYTE and JUDGE RULAND concur.


Summaries of

People in the Int. of C.R

Colorado Court of Appeals. Division I
Sep 16, 1976
557 P.2d 1225 (Colo. App. 1976)
Case details for

People in the Int. of C.R

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of Colorado In the Interest of C.R., F.J.L.…

Court:Colorado Court of Appeals. Division I

Date published: Sep 16, 1976

Citations

557 P.2d 1225 (Colo. App. 1976)
557 P.2d 1225

Citing Cases

State, in Interest of E.K

See, e.g., In re P.N., 533 P.2d 13, 16 (Alaska 1975); In re Jason L., 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 272 Cal.Rptr. 316,…

In re S.N.

¶29 Prospective harm thus requires the fact finder to predict whether, based on the parent’s past conduct and…