SUMMARY

August 29, 2019

2019COA136

No. 18CA1164, Peo in Interest of TMS — Juvenile Court —

Dependency and Neglect — Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem 

— Impaired Adult

A division of the court of appeals considers whether a 

guardian ad litem (GAL) for a parent with an intellectual disability 

may properly advocate against the parent’s goal of reunification. 

The division concludes that termination of a parent’s parental rights 

over the parent’s objection is not in the parent’s best interests. As a 

result, the juvenile court erred when it denied a parent’s motion to 

remove her GAL after the GAL advocated for positions that 

undermined the parent’s goal of reunification over the parent’s 

objections. The juvenile court also erred when it allowed the GAL to 

give closing argument at the termination hearing because, unlike a 

child’s GAL, a parent’s GAL may not participate as a party in 

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions 

constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by 

the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be 

cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. 

Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion 

should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.
dependency or neglect proceedings. Nonetheless, the juvenile 

court’s errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because (1) 

ample evidence supported the judgment of termination and (2) the 

juvenile court stated that it did not rely on the GAL’s improper 

argument.

The division concludes the juvenile court properly denied the 

parent’s motions for a continuance because the parent failed to 

show good cause for a delay or that a delay would serve the child’s 

best interests. 

The division also considers the parent’s claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel by her two trial attorneys. Based on its 

determination that the GAL’s improper advocacy was harmless, the 

division declines to consider the parent’s assertion that her first 

attorney rendered ineffective assistance by requesting the 

appointment of the GAL and allowing the GAL to advocate against 

the parent’s interests. The division rejects the parent’s claim as to 

her second attorney because the parent does not explain how the 

attorney’s allegedly deficient performance prejudiced her.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2019COA136

Court of Appeals No. 18CA1164

City and County of Denver Juvenile Court No. 17JV542

Honorable Laurie A. Clark, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Petitioner-Appellee,

In the Interest of T.M.S., a Child,

and Concerning S.A.S., 

Respondent-Appellant.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division IV

Opinion by JUDGE ROMÁN

J. Jones and Lipinsky, JJ., concur

Announced August 29, 2019

Kristin M. Bronson, City Attorney, Laura Grzetic Eibsen, Assistant City 

Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner-Appellee

Josi McCauley, Guardian Ad Litem

The Noble Law Firm, LLC, Antony Noble, Lakewood, Colorado, for RespondentAppellant
1

¶ 1 Mother, S.A.S., appeals the juvenile court’s judgment 

terminating her parent-child relationship with her child, T.M.S. We 

are asked to decide what happens in a dependency and neglect 

proceeding when the parent’s guardian ad litem (GAL) presents 

argument and testimony against the parent’s interest and over the 

parent’s objection. We conclude that the juvenile court erred in not 

granting the parent’s motion to remove the GAL and in permitting 

the GAL’s adverse closing argument. Nonetheless, under the 

circumstances of this case, we further conclude that these errors 

were harmless and, therefore, affirm.

I. Background

¶ 2 Mother has an intellectual disability. Shortly after the child 

was born, hospital staff contacted the Denver Department of 

Human Services to report that mother’s low functioning impairs her 

ability to provide proper care for the child. The Department filed a 

petition in dependency or neglect citing concerns that mother’s 

inability to recognize the child’s basic needs, such as for feeding, 

diapering, and swaddling, places him at risk of harm. The juvenile 

court placed the child in a foster home when he was released from 

the hospital, and he remained there throughout the proceeding.
2

¶ 3 The juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent or 

neglected and adopted a treatment plan for mother. One year later, 

the juvenile court held a three-day evidentiary hearing and 

terminated mother’s parental rights. The child’s father confessed 

the motion to terminate his parental rights. 

II. Analysis

A. Mother’s GAL

¶ 4 Mother contends that the juvenile court erred when it denied 

her motion to remove her GAL and allowed the GAL to give closing 

argument supporting the termination of her parental rights. We 

agree that the court erred. But, under the circumstances, we 

conclude that the error was harmless. 

1. The Role of a Parent’s GAL Is to Assist the Parent

and Protect the Parent’s Best Interests

¶ 5 A juvenile court may appoint a GAL for a respondent parent 

who has an intellectual or developmental disability. 

§ 19-1-111(2)(c), C.R.S. 2018. Under the Children’s Code, 

“guardian ad litem” means a person appointed by a court “to act in 

the best interests of the person whom the [GAL] is representing.” 

§ 19-1-103(59), C.R.S. 2018. A GAL must comply with the chief 
3

justice directives (CJD) and other practice standards incorporated 

by reference into the GAL statute. § 19-1-111(6). An attorney who 

is appointed as a GAL is subject to all of the rules and standards of 

the legal profession. See Chief Justice Directive 04-05, 

Appointment and Payment Procedures for Court-appointed 

Counsel, Guardians ad litem, Child and Family Investigators, and 

Court Visitors paid by the Judicial Department, § VI(A) (amended 

July 2018).

¶ 6 The legislature has recognized that the differences between the 

respective disabilities and legal incapacities of children and 

mentally disabled adults require separate standards regarding the 

appointment, duties, and rights of a GAL for these categories of 

persons. See People in Interest of M.M., 726 P.2d 1108, 1117 (Colo. 

1986). For example, a juvenile court must appoint a GAL for the 

child in a dependency or neglect proceeding but has discretion 

whether to appoint a GAL for a respondent parent who has an 

intellectual or developmental disability. § 19-1-111(1), (2)(c). The 

child’s GAL has a statutory right to participate as a party in 

dependency or neglect proceedings, but a parent’s GAL does not. 

§ 19-1-111(3); cf. People in Interest of A.R.W., 903 P.2d 10, 12 (Colo. 
4

App. 1994) (in contrast to role of child’s GAL in dependency and 

neglect proceedings or dissolution of marriage actions, GAL for child 

in paternity action is neither a party nor counsel for the child and 

has no right to control the proceedings, defend the action, or 

appeal). Section 19-3-203(3), C.R.S. 2018, defines the duties of the 

child’s GAL, which include making recommendations to the court 

concerning the child’s welfare. Conversely, no statute authorizes 

the parent’s GAL to make recommendations to the court concerning 

the parent’s welfare. 

¶ 7 Juvenile courts must “ensure that guardians ad litem . . . 

involved with cases under their jurisdiction are representing the 

best interests of . . . impaired adults.” CJD 04-05, § VIII(B).

¶ 8 To be sure, a respondent parent, the parent’s counsel, and the 

parent’s GAL have distinct roles and responsibilities in a 

dependency or neglect proceeding. “While it is the [parent’s 

counsel’s] duty to provide the parent with legal advice on such 

decisions as whether to contest the termination motion and 

whether to present particular defenses to the motion, it is the role 

and responsibility of the parent to make those decisions.” M.M., 

726 P.2d at 1120. 
5

¶ 9 Unlike the parent or parent’s counsel, the GAL does not 

participate as a party or a party’s advocate in dependency or neglect 

proceedings. Cf. § 19-1-111(3); A.R.W., 903 P.2d at 12. Instead, 

the GAL has an assistive role: to facilitate communication between 

the parent and counsel and help the parent participate in the 

proceeding. A juvenile court must appoint a GAL for a parent who 

“lacks the intellectual capacity to communicate with counsel or is 

mentally or emotionally incapable of weighing the advice of counsel 

on the particular course to pursue in her own interest.” M.M., 726 

P.2d at 1120. But a “client who is making decisions that [a] lawyer 

considers to be ill-considered is not necessarily unable to act in his 

[or her] own interest.” So if 

a parent, although mentally disabled to some 

degree, understands the nature and 

significance of the proceeding, is able to make 

decisions in her own behalf, and has the 

ability to communicate with and act on the 

advice of counsel, then a court might [properly] 

conclude . . . that a guardian ad litem could 

provide little, if any, service to the parent that 

would not be forthcoming from counsel. 

Id.
6

2. The Juvenile Court Erred When It Denied

Mother’s Motion to Remove Her GAL

¶ 10 Decisions regarding the appointment of a GAL for a parent lie 

within the discretion of the juvenile court. People in Interest of 

L.A.C., 97 P.3d 363, 366 (Colo. App. 2004). A court abuses its 

discretion when its ruling rests on a misunderstanding or 

misapplication of the law. Sinclair Transp. Co. v. Sandberg, 2014 

COA 75M, ¶ 26.

¶ 11 Mother was represented by two different attorneys during the 

proceeding below. Mother’s first attorney requested the 

appointment of a GAL for mother at the temporary custody hearing. 

She gave no reason for the request. The magistrate granted the 

request “based on the information contained in the [dependency or 

neglect] petition.”

¶ 12 Mother’s first attorney withdrew nine months later. At the 

next hearing, mother’s second attorney asked the juvenile court to 

replace mother’s GAL, asserting that mother’s GAL was acting 

outside her role as GAL by advocating against mother’s goal of 

reunifying with the child. She also said that mother’s relationship 

with the GAL had broken down to the point that the GAL could no 
7

longer fulfill her role. The juvenile court described its 

understanding of the GAL’s role as follows: 

[Mother] doesn’t get to dictate what [her GAL] 

does just like the child doesn’t get to dictate 

what [his GAL] does. 

. . . .

[Mother’s GAL] can advocate differently [from 

mother’s goals] if she believes that . . . such 

advocating would not be in her client’s best 

interest, meaning that it could put [mother] at 

criminal negligence [sic] for child abuse 

because [mother] doesn’t have the ability to do 

so, she absolutely should not be advocating for 

that. As matter of fact they [sic] would be 

against her role to do so. No different than if a 

[GAL were] representing a teenager, who said 

they wanted a return home, and [the GAL] 

believed that was not appropriate.

. . . .

So [mother’s GAL] has a du[a]l role. One role 

is to help [mother] understand the information 

that’s being provided, and, secondly, to 

advocate . . . for . . . what that [GAL] believes is 

in the best interest of the adult, not what the 

adult wants, not what the adult believes is 

best, but what the [GAL] believes is best. And 

so if [mother] wants me to sift through all the 

professionals to find one that’s going to agree 

with her, that’s not happening.

¶ 13 Mother then filed a written motion to dismiss the GAL. She 

asserted the following grounds for dismissal: 
8

(1) The GAL had improperly advocated for positions adverse 

to mother’s fundamental right to raise her child. The GAL 

had requested a reduction of parenting time and 

supported a concurrent permanency goal of adoption 

over mother’s objection.

(2) The GAL was ineffective in her role. Mother had difficulty 

understanding the GAL because the GAL did not use 

simple language or make other accommodations when 

presenting information. The GAL’s relationship with 

mother was so contentious that mother refused to meet 

with the GAL alone or to include the GAL in meetings 

with mother’s attorney.

(3) Mother did not need a GAL because she was able to 

understand the proceedings and assist her attorney 

without one. Mother’s attorney was able to communicate 

with her effectively. When necessary, mother’s attorney 

employed other protections to support mother, such as 

enlisting trusted family and kin. 

¶ 14 Mother’s GAL filed a response to the motion, which the 

juvenile court accepted and cited in its order. We note, however, 
9

that mother’s GAL lacked standing to file a response to mother’s 

motion because she was not a party to the dependency or neglect 

proceeding. Cf. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 694 (2013) 

(except in limited circumstances, a litigant may not assert the legal 

rights or interests of others); see also C.W.B., Jr. v. A.S., 2018 CO 8, 

¶ 38 (statute granting foster parents right to intervene and 

participate fully in dependency or neglect proceedings does not 

confer standing to appeal juvenile court’s judgment denying motion 

to terminate parental rights).

¶ 15 The juvenile court denied mother’s motion to remove the GAL. 

The court reasoned that a respondent parent’s GAL, like a child’s 

GAL, has a duty to represent what the GAL believes to be in the 

parent’s best interests — even over the objection of the parent and 

the parent’s counsel. 

¶ 16 But the GAL improperly participated in the proceeding when 

she purported to represent mother’s best interests in court hearings 

and pleadings standing apart from mother and mother’s counsel. 

And by advocating for a reduction of parenting time and supporting 

a concurrent permanency goal of adoption, the GAL undermined 

mother’s constitutional interest in preventing the irretrievable 
10

destruction of the parent-child relationship. See M.M., 726 P.2d at 

1122 n.9. The GAL asserted that visitation was stressful for mother 

and the baby, mother was exhausted after visits, and mother had 

not learned to read the baby’s cues. But these concerns did not 

establish that it was in mother’s best interests to reduce her 

opportunity to develop her parenting skills or to plan for 

permanently severing her contact with the child. And they did not 

outweigh mother’s fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, 

and management of her child. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 

745, 753-54 (1982). Thus, the juvenile court erred when it 

concluded that the GAL’s advocacy served mother’s best interests.

¶ 17 Citing M.M., the juvenile court also noted that courts must 

appoint GALs for parents in cases where “the parent is mentally 

impaired so as to be incapable of understanding the nature and 

significance of the proceeding or incapable of making those critical 

decisions that are the parent’s right to make.” 726 P.2d at 1120. 

But the court made no findings to support the appointment of a 

GAL for mother on this basis, and we find no such support in the 

record. To the contrary, mother’s counsel advised the court that 
11

mother understood the proceedings and could work effectively with 

counsel.

¶ 18 We conclude that the juvenile court abused its discretion 

when it denied mother’s motion to dismiss her GAL.

3. The Juvenile Court Erred When It Allowed Mother’s GAL

to Give Closing Argument and Improper Testimony

¶ 19 Over mother’s objection, mother’s GAL gave a closing 

argument at the termination hearing in which the GAL urged the 

juvenile court to terminate mother’s parental rights.1 We agree with 

mother that the court erred in permitting this argument for three 

reasons.

¶ 20 First, a parent’s GAL has no right to participate as a party in a 

dependency or neglect proceeding. See § 19-1-111. So, the GAL 

had no right to present closing argument.

 

1 During the termination hearing, mother’s GAL also testified in 

opposition to mother’s motion to continue the proceeding because 

mother had not been properly accommodated under the Americans 

with Disabilities Act. Specifically, mother’s GAL testified, “All of the 

accommodations that were necessary have been put into place. I 

don’t think there’s anything else that could have been done.” 
12

¶ 21 Second, the GAL’s closing argument included improper 

testimony. When a GAL makes recommendations “based on an 

independent investigation, the facts of which have not otherwise 

been introduced into evidence, the guardian functions as a witness 

in the proceedings and, thus, should be subject to examination and 

cross-examination as to the bases of his or her opinion and 

recommendation.” People in Interest of J.E.B., 854 P.2d 1372, 1375 

(Colo. App. 1993) (discussing children’s GALs, who may choose to 

present recommendations either through closing argument or 

through testimony).

¶ 22 The GAL described her observations of mother and the facts 

underlying her recommendations. She told the juvenile court that 

mother had refused to engage in necessary services. The GAL said 

that mother had tried very hard, but mother’s disabilities made it 

impossible for her to parent the child. This type of information 

could only be offered through the testimony of a witness because it 

was based on the GAL’s personal observations and included facts 

that had not otherwise been introduced into evidence. See id. And 

by appointing a GAL to assist mother and then allowing the GAL to 

testify against her, the juvenile court violated mother’s right to 
13

fundamentally fair procedures in the termination proceeding. See 

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); People in Interest of 

D.C.C., 2018 COA 98, ¶ 21.

¶ 23 Third, it was improper for the GAL to advocate against 

mother’s goal of protecting her fundamental liberty interest in the 

care, custody, and management of her child. See Santosky, 455 

U.S. at 753. The termination of mother’s parental rights over her 

objection was not in mother’s best interests as a matter of law. Yet 

the GAL told the court that termination would be in mother’s best 

interests. So, the juvenile court erred when it allowed the GAL to 

act against mother’s goals in the proceeding. See CJD 04-05, 

§ VIII(B).

¶ 24 Accordingly, we conclude that the juvenile court erred when it 

allowed mother’s GAL to give closing argument and testify in 

opposition to mother’s interests.

4. The Juvenile Court’s Errors Were Harmless

¶ 25 Mother urges us to apply the constitutional harmless error 

standard of reversal, under which we may disregard an error only if 

it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. An error is harmless if it 

does not affect a party’s substantial rights. See C.A.R. 35(c). 
14

¶ 26 Our supreme court has not addressed whether the 

constitutional harmless error standard applies with respect to a 

parent’s constitutional rights in dependency or neglect proceedings. 

See A.M. v. A.C., 2013 CO 16, ¶ 16 n.10. For purposes of this 

opinion, we will assume that it does. An error is harmless beyond a 

reasonable doubt if there is no reasonable possibility that the error 

prejudiced the appellant. People v. Trujillo, 114 P.3d 27, 32 (Colo. 

App. 2004).

¶ 27 Our review of the record leads us to conclude that there is no 

reasonable possibility that the outcome of the proceeding would 

have been different if the juvenile court had dismissed mother’s 

GAL or precluded the GAL from giving closing argument. We reach 

this conclusion for two reasons.

¶ 28 First, the juvenile court said that in considering the success of 

the treatment plan, it had “listened to argument by all parties, but 

[based] its ruling . . . only [on] the testimony that was provided 

during [the] hearing.” Thus, we conclude that the court did not rely 

on the improper testimony by mother’s GAL.

¶ 29 Second, ample evidence showed that mother remained unfit to 

parent the child despite intensive intervention over a long period of 
15

time, and that her conduct or condition of unfitness was unlikely to 

change. This evidence included testimony by a psychologist and 

mother’s visitation therapist.

¶ 30 The psychologist, who performed a cognitive evaluation of 

mother, testified at the termination hearing that mother’s cognitive 

functioning was in the extremely low range — below ninety-nine 

percent of people her age. He said this meant she would have 

difficulty learning, grasping concepts, and understanding 

communications. He recommended intensive support services, 

including hands-on parenting skill development such as that 

provided by a therapist.

¶ 31 Mother’s visitation therapist testified that she had provided 

intensive, hands-on parenting skills training for mother during 

visitation. The therapist said she had worked with mother at over 

sixty visits — for three to six hours per visit, twice a week, for nine 

months. She said she had tailored her teaching style to mother’s 

learning style based on the psychologist’s recommendations. She 

described accommodations that addressed mother’s memory, 
16

learning style, verbal skills, concrete learning, and scaffolding 

techniques.2

¶ 32 The therapist opined that it was not safe to leave mother alone 

with the child for more than five minutes, and even then only if the 

child was in a secure setting such as a crib or car seat where he 

could not fall. She explained that mother would often freeze if she 

did not know how to respond; in one instance, mother froze when 

the child began to gag on his saliva, and the therapist had to 

intervene. She testified that, despite mother’s effort and desire, 

mother was unable to keep up with the child’s growth and 

development. She said mother’s parenting skills had peaked, 

mother could not consistently meet the child’s needs, and mother 

would need twenty-four-hour supervision to parent the child. 

¶ 33 The juvenile court also made the following findings and 

conclusions, which are supported by testimony at the termination 

hearing:

 

2 “Scaffolding” involves teaching parents new skills with young 

children, starting with lots of support and gradually withdrawing 

the support as the parent learns to do things on his or her own. 
17

¶ 34 Mother had not made enough progress to be able to care for 

the child alone for any period of time without creating a grave risk 

of death or serious bodily injury to the child. 

¶ 35 Mother’s tendency to freeze was unpredictable and put the 

child at significant risk due to his young age.

¶ 36 Mother had not been able to maintain a support system that 

would allow her to care for the child. She was no longer engaged 

with the people who wanted to protect her. 

¶ 37 Despite complying with her treatment plan, mother had not 

internalized the services provided in such a way as to address the 

concerns that brought the case to the Department’s attention.

¶ 38 Even with accommodations, mother’s disability rendered her 

unable to meet the child’s needs.

¶ 39 Mother was unfit, and her conduct or condition was unlikely 

to change within a reasonable time.

¶ 40 Under these circumstances, we conclude that the juvenile 

court’s errors in denying mother’s motion to dismiss the GAL and 

allowing the GAL to give closing argument and testimony that 

supported the termination of mother’s parental rights were 

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
18

B. Ineffective Assistance of Mother’s First Attorney

¶ 41 Mother contends that her first attorney rendered ineffective 

assistance by requesting the appointment of the GAL and by 

allowing the GAL to advocate against mother’s goal of reunification. 

Based on our conclusion that there is no reasonable possibility the 

GAL’s conduct prejudiced mother, we need not address this 

contention. See People in Interest of A.R., 2018 COA 176, ¶ 7 

(parent must demonstrate prejudice to succeed on a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel) (cert. granted Mar. 4, 2019); People 

in Interest of C.H., 166 P.3d 288, 291 (Colo. App. 2007) (same).

C. Motions for Continuance

¶ 42 Mother contends that the juvenile court erred when it denied 

her motions to continue the termination hearing. We perceive no 

basis for reversal.

1. Standard of Review and Legal Principles

¶ 43 We will uphold a juvenile court’s ruling on a motion for 

continuance absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. M.M., 726 

P.2d at 1121; People in Interest of T.E.M., 124 P.3d 905, 908 (Colo. 

App. 2005). A court abuses its discretion when its ruling is 
19

manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. People in Interest of 

A.N-B., 2019 COA 46, ¶ 9.

¶ 44 In ruling on a motion for continuance, a juvenile court “should 

balance the need for orderly and expeditious administration of 

justice against the facts underlying the motion, while considering 

the child’s need for permanency.” T.E.M., 124 P.3d at 908; see also

M.M., 726 P.2d at 1121.

¶ 45 The child was an infant when the Department filed the 

petition, so the juvenile court could not delay or continue the 

termination hearing absent good cause and a finding that the delay 

would serve the best interests of the child. §§ 19-3-104, 

19-3-508(3)(a), 19-3-602(1), C.R.S. 2018; see also § 19-1-123, 

C.R.S. 2018 (expedited permanency procedures for children under 

six years old).

2. Witnesses

¶ 46 Mother contends that the juvenile court erred when it denied 

her motion to continue the termination hearing to allow her to 

secure the attendance of all her witnesses. We disagree.

¶ 47 The termination hearing was originally scheduled for two days, 

but it took three days. The morning of the third day, mother’s 
20

attorney moved for a continuance. Mother’s attorney reported that 

three of mother’s witnesses were unavailable to testify that day 

because she had not been able to notify them of the additional 

hearing date. Mother’s attorney did not explain how a delay would 

serve the child’s best interests.

¶ 48 The juvenile court denied the motion. The court noted that 

the termination hearing was already in its third day and that the 

witnesses could have been taken out of order to accommodate their 

schedules. The court found that the lack of availability of witnesses 

did not establish good cause to continue the hearing. 

¶ 49 The juvenile court’s ruling reflects that it considered the 

reasons for mother’s motion and the need to conclude the 

termination hearing in a timely manner. The record supports the 

juvenile court’s finding that mother did not establish good cause for 

granting a delay. And mother provided no basis to find that a delay 

would serve the child’s best interests. See § 19-3-104; 

§ 19-3-602(1).

¶ 50 Therefore, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse 

its discretion when it denied mother’s motion to continue the 
21

termination hearing to allow her to secure the attendance of her 

remaining witnesses.

¶ 51 To the extent mother contends that the juvenile court erred 

when it did not conduct an analysis on the record that balanced the 

court’s administrative needs and the child’s need for permanency 

against mother’s reasons for requesting the continuance, we 

disagree. We are aware of no authority that requires courts to 

make such specific findings on the record. 

3. Additional Time

¶ 52 Mother contends that the juvenile court erred when it denied 

her motion to continue the termination hearing so that she could (1) 

have more time to work on her treatment plan and (2) investigate 

less drastic alternatives to termination of her parental rights. 

Again, we disagree.

¶ 53 We cannot conclude that the juvenile court erred when it did 

not give her more time to work on her treatment plan. Mother’s 

therapist testified that mother’s parenting skills had peaked and 

she remained unfit to parent the child independently for even brief 

periods after nine months of intensive intervention.
22

¶ 54 Mother identified two possible alternatives to termination of 

her parental rights that she wanted to explore. One was joint 

placement for herself and the child in a host home through Rocky 

Mountain Health Services. Mother said she had recently accepted a 

referral for services and her eligibility was under review. But 

testimony at the termination hearing established that mother had 

refused to accept a referral for this service during most of the 

dependency or neglect proceeding. The delay in evaluating this 

option was due to mother’s conduct.

¶ 55 Mother also wanted time for the Department to evaluate her 

housemate as a kin provider. But the record shows the Department 

did evaluate him. Although the Department did not conduct an 

extensive investigation, it determined that the housemate had a 

criminal record and a child welfare record that disqualified him 

from being involved in the child’s care.

¶ 56 Thus, the record shows that mother did not demonstrate good 

cause for a delay or that a delay would have served the child’s best 

interests. We therefore conclude that the juvenile court did not 

abuse its discretion when it denied mother’s motion to continue the 

termination hearing to give her more time to comply with her 
23

treatment plan and investigate less drastic alternatives to 

termination.

D. Ineffective Assistance of Mother’s Second Attorney

¶ 57 Mother contends that her second attorney rendered ineffective 

assistance by failing to secure the attendance of her witnesses on 

the third day of the termination hearing. We perceive no basis for 

reversal.

¶ 58 To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, 

mother must establish that she was prejudiced by counsel’s 

allegedly deficient performance. See A.R., ¶ 7; C.H., 166 P.3d at 

291.

¶ 59 Mother contends that counsel’s alleged error prejudiced her 

because she was not able to present the following testimony:

¶ 60 The intake social worker would have testified about mother’s 

disability, the disability accommodations provided by the 

Department at the time of intake, and the accommodations 

provided by the hospital where the child was born. But mother 

does not specify what this testimony would have been or how it 

would have helped her case.
24

¶ 61 The service coordination supervisor from Rocky Mountain 

Human Services would have testified about the services the 

organization generally provides and the date mother became eligible 

for the services. But mother does not suggest that this testimony 

would have differed from that provided by other witnesses who 

addressed the same issues.

¶ 62 A disability services provider from Rocky Mountain Human 

Services would have testified about the timeline for application for 

their services and the lack of reasonable efforts by the Department. 

See §§ 19-1-103(89), 19-3-100.5, 19-3-604(2)(h), C.R.S. 2018 (state 

must make reasonable efforts to rehabilitate parents and reunite 

families following out-of-home placement of abused or neglected 

children). But mother does not describe how the witness’s 

description of the timeline would have differed from other testimony 

or specify what efforts the witness would have said were lacking. 

¶ 63 Most importantly, mother does not explain how this testimony 

would have affected the outcome of the case in light of her 

therapist’s testimony that her parenting skills had peaked and she 

remained unable to parent the child without constant supervision 

after nine months of intensive intervention. Moreover, she does not 
25

suggest that any of these witnesses would have refuted the 

therapist’s testimony.

¶ 64 Therefore, we reject mother’s contention that reversal is 

warranted because her second counsel rendered ineffective 

assistance.

III. Conclusion

¶ 65 The judgment is affirmed.

JUDGE J. JONES and JUDGE LIPINSKY concur.