CO Code § 19-3-508 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 19 - Children's Code|Article 3 - Dependency and Neglect|Part 5 - Petition, Adjudication, Disposition|§ 19-3-508. Neglected or Dependent Child - Disposition - Concurrent Planning

  When a child has been adjudicated to be neglected or dependent, the court may enter a decree of disposition the same day, but in any event it shall do so within forty-five days unless the court finds that the best interests of the child will be served by granting a delay. In a county designated pursuant to section 19-1-123, if the child is under six years of age at the time a petition is filed in accordance with section 19-3-501 (2), the court shall enter a decree of disposition within thirty days after the adjudication and shall not grant a delay unless good cause is shown and unless the court finds that the best interests of the child will be served by granting the delay. It is the intent of the general assembly that the dispositional hearing be held on the same day as the adjudicatory hearing, whenever possible. If a delay is granted, the court shall set forth the reasons why a delay is necessary and the minimum amount of time needed to resolve the reasons for the delay and shall schedule the hearing at the earliest possible time following the delay. When the proposed disposition is termination of the parent-child legal relationship, the hearing on termination must not be held on the same date as the adjudication, and the time limits set forth above for dispositional hearings do not apply. When the proposed disposition is termination of the parent-child legal relationship, the court may continue the dispositional hearing to the earliest available date for a hearing in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3)(a) of this section and part 6 of this article 3. When the decree does not terminate the parent-child legal relationship, the court shall approve an appropriate treatment plan that must include but not be limited to one or more of the following provisions of subsections (1)(a) to (1)(d) of this section:   The court may place the child in the legal custody of one or both parents or the guardian, with or without protective supervision, under such conditions as the court deems necessary and appropriate. In a county designated pursuant to section 19-1-123, if the child is under six years of age at the time a petition is filed in accordance with section 19-3-501 (2) and is placed with a parent or guardian who is a named respondent in a petition filed pursuant to section 19-3-502, the treatment plan shall include a requirement that the family obtain services specific to the family's needs if available in the community where the family resides and based on the social study and reports provided pursuant to section 19-1-107 (2.5).    The court may place the child in the legal custody of a relative, including the child's grandparent, or other suitable person, with or without protective supervision, under such conditions as the court deems necessary and appropriate. If a child is not placed with a parent pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (1), preference may be given by the court for placement with a grandparent pursuant to this paragraph (b) if in the best interests of the child.    The court may place legal custody in the county department of human or social services or a child placement agency for placement in a foster care home or other child care facility. When the child is part of a sibling group and the sibling group is being placed out of the home, if the county department locates an appropriate, capable, willing, and available joint placement for all of the children in the sibling group, it is presumed that placement of the entire sibling group in the joint placement is in the best interests of the children. Such presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence that placement of the entire sibling group in the joint placement is not in the best interests of a child or of the children.      The court may order that the child be examined or treated by a physician, surgeon, psychiatrist, or psychologist or that he or she receive other special care and may place the child in a hospital or other suitable facility for such purposes; except that the child may not be placed in a mental health facility operated by the department of human services until the child has received a behavioral or mental health disorder prescreening resulting in a recommendation that the child be placed in a facility for evaluation pursuant to section 27-65-105 or 27-65-106, or a hearing has been held by the court after notice to all parties, including the department of human services. An order for a seventy-two-hour treatment and evaluation must not be entered unless a hearing is held and evidence indicates that the prescreening report is inadequate, incomplete, or incorrect and that competent professional evidence is presented by a mental health professional that indicates that a behavioral or mental health disorder is present in the child. The court shall make, prior to the hearing, such orders regarding temporary custody of the child as are deemed appropriate. (d) (I) The court may order that the child be examined or treated by a physician, surgeon, psychiatrist, or psychologist or that he or she receive other special care and may place the child in a hospital or other suitable facility for such purposes; except that the child may not be placed in a mental health facility operated by the department of human services until the child has received a behavioral or mental health disorder prescreening resulting in a recommendation that the child be placed in a facility for evaluation pursuant to section 27-65-105 or 27-65-106, or a hearing has been held by the court after notice to all parties, including the department of human services. An order for a seventy-two-hour treatment and evaluation must not be entered unless a hearing is held and evidence indicates that the prescreening report is inadequate, incomplete, or incorrect and that competent professional evidence is presented by a mental health professional that indicates that a behavioral or mental health disorder is present in the child. The court shall make, prior to the hearing, such orders regarding temporary custody of the child as are deemed appropriate.    Placement in any facility operated by the department of human services shall continue for such time as ordered by the court or until the professional person in charge of the child's treatment concludes that the treatment or placement is no longer appropriate. If placement or treatment is no longer deemed appropriate, the court shall be notified and a hearing held for further disposition of the child within five days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The court shall make, prior to the hearing, such orders regarding temporary custody of the child as are deemed appropriate.         Except where the proposed disposition is termination of the parent-child legal relationship, the court shall approve an appropriate treatment plan involving the child named and each respondent named and served in the action. However, the court may find that an appropriate treatment plan cannot be devised as to a particular respondent because the child has been abandoned as set forth in section 19-3-604 (1)(a) and the parents cannot be located, or because the child has been adjudicated as neglected or dependent based upon section 19-3-102 (2), or due to the unfitness of the parents as set forth in section 19-3-604 (1)(b). When the court finds that an appropriate treatment plan cannot be devised, the court shall conduct a permanency hearing as set forth in section 19-3-702 (1), unless a motion for termination of parental rights has been filed within thirty days after the court's finding. (e) (I) Except where the proposed disposition is termination of the parent-child legal relationship, the court shall approve an appropriate treatment plan involving the child named and each respondent named and served in the action. However, the court may find that an appropriate treatment plan cannot be devised as to a particular respondent because the child has been abandoned as set forth in section 19-3-604 (1)(a) and the parents cannot be located, or because the child has been adjudicated as neglected or dependent based upon section 19-3-102 (2), or due to the unfitness of the parents as set forth in section 19-3-604 (1)(b). When the court finds that an appropriate treatment plan cannot be devised, the court shall conduct a permanency hearing as set forth in section 19-3-702 (1), unless a motion for termination of parental rights has been filed within thirty days after the court's finding.    Repealed.          Before a disposition other than that provided in paragraph   of subsection (1) of this section is made, it shall be established by a preponderance of the evidence that a separation of the child from the parents or guardian is in the best interests of the child.         The court may enter a decree terminating the parent-child legal relationship of one or both parents pursuant to part 6 of this article. Pursuant to section 19-3-602 (1), in a county designated pursuant to section 19-1-123, if the child is under six years of age at the time a petition is filed in accordance with section 19-3-501 (2), the court shall hear a motion for termination within one hundred twenty days after such motion is filed, and shall not grant a delay unless good cause is shown and unless the court finds that the best interests of the child will be served by granting a delay in accordance with the requirements of section 19-3-104.    Upon the entry of a decree terminating the parent-child legal relationship of both parents, of the sole surviving parent, or of the only known parent, the court may:   Vest the county department of human or social services or a child placement agency with the legal custody and guardianship of the person of a child for the purposes of placing the child for adoption; or    Make any other disposition provided in paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of subsection (1) of this section that the court finds appropriate.  (b.5) In making a disposition pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection (3), the court may give preference to making a disposition as provided in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section, if in the best interests of the child.        Upon the entry of a decree terminating the parent-child legal relationship of one parent, the court may:   Leave the child in the legal custody of the other parent and discharge the proceedings; or    Make any other disposition provided in subsection (1) of this section that the court finds appropriate.          (Deleted by amendment,L. 97, p. 520, § 8, effective July 1, 1997.)      In placing the legal custody or guardianship of the person of a child with an individual or a private agency, the court shall give primary consideration to the welfare of the child but shall take into consideration the religious preferences of the child or of his parents whenever practicable.      If the court finds that placement out of the home is necessary and is in the best interests of the child and the community, the court shall place the child with a relative, including the child's grandparent, as provided in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section, if such placement is in the child's best interests. The court shall place the child in the facility or setting that most appropriately meets the needs of the child, the family, and the community. In making its decision as to proper placement, the court shall utilize the evaluation for placement prepared pursuant to section 19-1-107. If the court deviates from the recommendations of the evaluation for placement in a manner that results in a difference in the cost of the disposition ordered by the court and the cost of the disposition recommended in the evaluation, the court shall make specific findings of fact relating to its decision, including the monthly cost of the placement, if ordered. A copy of such findings shall be sent to the chief justice of the supreme court, who shall report annually to the joint budget committee and annually to the health, environment, welfare, and institutions committees of the house of representatives and senate of the general assembly on such orders. (b) (I) If the court finds that placement out of the home is necessary and is in the best interests of the child and the community, the court shall place the child with a relative, including the child's grandparent, as provided in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section, if such placement is in the child's best interests. The court shall place the child in the facility or setting that most appropriately meets the needs of the child, the family, and the community. In making its decision as to proper placement, the court shall utilize the evaluation for placement prepared pursuant to section 19-1-107. If the court deviates from the recommendations of the evaluation for placement in a manner that results in a difference in the cost of the disposition ordered by the court and the cost of the disposition recommended in the evaluation, the court shall make specific findings of fact relating to its decision, including the monthly cost of the placement, if ordered. A copy of such findings shall be sent to the chief justice of the supreme court, who shall report annually to the joint budget committee and annually to the health, environment, welfare, and institutions committees of the house of representatives and senate of the general assembly on such orders.    Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (b) to the contrary, when the child is part of a sibling group and the sibling group is being placed out of the home, if the county department locates an appropriate, capable, willing, and available joint placement for all of the children in the sibling group, it shall be presumed that placement of the entire sibling group in the joint placement is in the best interests of the children. Such presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence that placement of the entire sibling group in the joint placement is not in the best interests of a child or of the children.          The court may grant a new hearing as provided in the Colorado rules of juvenile procedure.    Efforts to place a child for adoption or with a legal guardian or custodian, including identifying appropriate in-state and out-of-state permanent placement options, may be made concurrently with reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family.    When entering a decree placing the child in the legal custody of a relative or placing the child in the legal custody of a county department for placement in a foster care home, the court shall ensure that the child's placement at the time of the hearing is in the best interests of the child and shall inquire about documentation that the county department or a licensed child placement agency has adequately screened the foster care provider or the family member who is seeking to care for the child and any adult residing in that home and that all of the criminal history record checks and other background checks have been completed as required pursuant to section 26-6-106.3, C.R.S., or 19-3-407.     History. Source: L. 87: Entire title R&RE, p. 785, § 1, effective October 1. L. 91: (1)(b), (3), and (5)(b) amended, p. 265, § 9, effective May 31. L. 94: IP(1), (1)(a), IP(4), and (4)(a) amended, p. 2054, § 7, effective July 1; (1)(d) amended, p. 2685, § 205, effective July 1. L. 96: (1)(e)(II) repealed, p. 85, § 11, effective March 20; IP(1) and (1)(c) amended, p. 265, § 17, effective July 1; (5)(b) amended, p. 1246, § 116, effective August 7. L. 97: IP(1), (1)(e)(I), and (4) amended, p. 520, § 8, effective July 1; (1)(e)(I) and (5)(b) amended, pp. 1439, 1441, §§ 15, 18, effective July 1. L. 98: (1)(e)(I) amended and (7) added, p. 1418, § 5, effective July 1. L. 99: (1)(e)(I) amended, p. 912, § 7, effective July 1. L. 2001: (2) amended, p. 847, § 9, effective June 1. L. 2003: (1)(c) and (5)(b) amended, p. 2625, § 6, effective June 5; IP(1) and (3)(a) amended, p. 1225, § 1, effective August 6. L. 2007: (7) amended, p. 1018, § 8, effective May 22. L. 2010: (1)(d)(I) amended,(SB 10-175), ch. 188, p. 793, § 46, effective April 29. L. 2015: (8) added,(SB 15-087), ch. 263, p. 1019, § 11, effective June 2. L. 2017: IP(1) and (1)(d)(I) amended,(SB 17-242), ch. 263, p. 1317, § 166, effective May 25. L. 2018: (1)(c) and (3)(b)(I) amended,(SB 18-092), ch. 38, p. 422, § 62, effective August 8.    Editor's note:    This section was contained in a title that was repealed and reenacted in 1987. Provisions of this section, as it existed in 1987, are similar to those contained in 19-3-111 as said section existed in 1986, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this title.    Amendments to subsection (1)(e)(I) by Senate Bill 97-218 and Senate Bill 97-71 were harmonized.    Although subsection (7) refers to the term “custodian”, reference to the term “custody”, and related terms, have been changed in other places in the Colorado Revised Statutes to correspond with the use of the term “parental responsibilities” as described in § 14-10-124, C.R.S.     Cross references:   For the legislative declaration contained in the 1996 act amending subsection (5)(b), see section 1 of chapter 237, Session Laws of Colorado 1996. For the legislative declaration contained in the 1999 act amending subsection (1)(e)(I), see section 1 of chapter 233, Session Laws of Colorado 1999. For the legislative declaration contained in the 2001 act amending subsection (2), see section 1 of chapter 241, Session Laws of Colorado 2001. For the legislative declaration in SB 17-242, see section 1 of chapter 263, Session Laws of Colorado 2017. For the legislative declaration in SB 18-092, see section 1 of chapter 38, Session Laws of Colorado 2018.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Workmen's Compensation, Attorneys and Family Law”, see 31 Dicta 1 (1954). For article, “One Year Review of Domestic Relations”, see 34 Dicta 108 (1957). For article, “One Year Review of Criminal Law and Procedure”, see 36 Dicta 34 (1959). For note, “Enforcement of Support Duties in Colorado”, see 33 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 70 (1960). For article, “One Year Review of Domestic Relations”, see 38 Dicta 84 (1961). For note, “In re Gault and the Colorado Children's Code”, see 44 Den. L. J. 644 (1967). For article, “Representing the Mentally Retarded or Disabled Parent in a Colorado Dependent or Neglected Child Action”, see 11 Colo. Law. 693 (1982). For article, “Review of New Legislation Relating to Criminal Law”, see 11 Colo. Law. 2148 (1982). For article, “Colorado Residential Child Care Facilities: A Plea for Adequate Funding”, see 13 Colo. Law. 2241 (1984). For article, “The Role of Parents' Counsel in Dependency and Neglect Proceedings -- Parts I and II”, see 14 Colo. Law. 568 and 794 (1985). For article, “House Bill 1268 -- In the Best Interests of the Child”, see 18 Colo. Law. 1703 (1989).   Annotator's note. (1) The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.   (2) A number of the cases annotated below were decided prior to the 1977 amendment changing the term “parental rights” to “parent-child legal relationship”.   This section was enacted with an understanding and appreciation of societal interest in maintaining and protecting the natural parents' interests in the child, and those of the child in the parent, absent parental acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to the child to mandate a forfeiture of those rights. People in Interest of K.S., 33 Colo. App. 72, 515 P.2d 130 (1973).   Parental rights are personal between each parent and child. People in Interest of K.S., 33 Colo. App. 72, 515 P.2d 130 (1973).   The Colorado Children's Code does not recognize difference between deprivation of parental custody and termination of parental rights. The Children's Code does not by its language clearly recognize the substantial difference between deprivation of parental custody and termination of parental rights. People in Interest of K.S., 33 Colo. App. 72, 515 P.2d 130 (1973).   Jurisdiction of court to determine placement. It is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court to determine the placement of a child adjudicated neglected, dependent, or delinquent. State Dept. of Soc. Servs. v. Arapahoe County Dept. of Soc. Servs., 642 P.2d 16 (Colo. App. 1981).   Section 19-1-109 (2)(c) is not meant to delay permanent placement decisions while appeals of dependency and neglect orders are litigated. Section 19-1-109 (2)(c) provides the trial court with continuing jurisdiction to enter further permanent custody orders under § 19-3-702 if it furthers the child's best interests, even if those orders are entered after the order adjudicating the child dependent or neglected is appealed. People ex rel. K.A., 155 P.3d 558 (Colo. App. 2006).   Power of court over custody. The court and not the probation officer prescribes and determines what the terms and conditions are under which the child shall be maintained by its custodian, and to make the same specific in its order or judgment. Young v. McLaughlin, 126 Colo. 188 , 247 P.2d 813 (1952).   Criminal sanctions not provided. In a hearing to determine if a child is neglected or dependent, there is no fine or confinement to a state institution nor any other criminal sanctions. These are not criminal proceedings. The state is in the position of parens patriae, and the matter for determination is what will serve the best interests of the child. This is the rule which prevails in Colorado and elsewhere in child custody cases. Robinson v. People in Interest of Zollinger, 173 Colo. 113 , 476 P.2d 262 (1970).   No standards or guidance in selecting alternative dispositions. This section provides alternative methods of disposition for children adjudicated neglected and dependent, but other than directing the court to operate in the best interests of the child, the Colorado Children's Code establishes no standards and provides no guidance to the courts in choosing between these alternatives. People in Interest of K.S., 33 Colo. App. 72, 515 P.2d 130 (1973).   Although this section provides alternative methods of disposition, the Children's Code, as a whole, does not establish standards and guidelines to assist the courts in choosing between alternatives. People in Interest of M.B., 188 Colo. 370 , 535 P.2d 192 (1975).   The court does not lack subject matter jurisdiction to declare a child dependent and neglected if the act of abuse took place outside the state. Neither the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act nor the Colorado Children's Code requires that acts of abuse take place in Colorado in order to allow the state to protect an abused child who is within the state's borders. People in Interest of K.G., 876 P.2d 1 (Colo. App. 1993).   Under subsection (1) if a child is adjudicated dependent or neglected and if the decree does not terminate the parent-child legal relationship, the court must designate legal custody of the child. Such legal custody may be placed in one of the parents. People in Interest of R.E., 721 P.2d 1233 (Colo. App. 1986).   Interest and welfare of child is controlling question. Every child is under the control of the state, and even the paternal right to its custody and control must yield to the interests and welfare of the child, and the paramount and controlling question by which courts must be guided in proceedings affecting the custody of the infant is the interest and welfare of the child. People ex rel. Flannery v. Bolton, 27 Colo. App. 39, 146 P. 489 (1915); McKercher v. Green, 13 Colo. App. 270, 58 P. 406, (1899); Wilson v. Mitchell, 48 Colo. 454 , 111 P. 21 (1910); Breene v. Breene, 51 Colo. 342 , 117 P. 1000 (1911); People ex rel. Broxholm v. Parks, 57 Colo. 458 , 141 P. 994 (1914); Fulton v. Martensen, 129 Colo. 125 , 267 P.2d 658 (1954); Johnson v. People in Interest of W__ J__, 170 Colo. 137 , 459 P.2d 579 (1969).   The desires and wishes of the parent become subordinate to the court's determination as to what order of custody will be for the dependent child's best interest. Young v. McLaughlin, 126 Colo. 188 , 247 P.2d 813 (1952).   Under the Colorado Children's Code, parties are precluded from stipulating restrictions upon court's duty to protect best interests of child. In re People in Interest of A.R.S., 31 Colo. App. 268, 502 P.2d 92 (1972); People in Interest of G.K.H., 698 P.2d 1386 (Colo. App. 1984).   The paramount consideration of a disposition is the best interests of the child with due consideration being given to the past history of the child while in the custody of the parent or guardian. People in Interest of K.S., 33 Colo. App. 72, 515 P.2d 130 (1973); People in Interest of R.E., 721 P.2d 1233 (Colo. App. 1986).   In providing for a child found to be dependent or neglected, the focus is the best interests of that child. People in Interest of S.S.T., 38.Colo. App. 110, 553 P.2d 82 (1976).   Court may conduct in camera interview with a child to determine child's best interests and how to allocate parental responsibilities within a dependency and neglect proceeding. Unless waived by the parties, a record of the interview must be made. The record must be made available to parents, upon request, in situations in which a parent needs (1) to determine whether the court's findings, insofar as they relied on facts from the interview, are supported by the record, or (2) an opportunity to contest information supplied by the child during the interview and relied on by the court. People in Interest of H.K.W., 2017 COA 70 , 417 P.3d 875.   Observance of parents' wishes as to religious training. The wishes of the parent as to the religious training of the child are subordinated to the controlling consideration of the child's welfare. People ex rel. Flannery v. Bolton, 27 Colo. App. 39, 146 P. 489 (1915).   Application of res judicata. A voluntary dismissal pursuant to an invalid stipulation is not a decision to which the doctrine of res judicata applies to preclude a subsequent action in dependency or neglect. People in Interest of G.K.H., 698 P.2d 1386 (Colo. App. 1984).   The court must hold a dispositional hearing and consider an appropriate treatment plan at the time or within 45 days of declaring the child dependent or neglected before terminating parental rights. People ex rel. D.R.W, 91 P.3d 453 (Colo. App. 2004).   Court did not err by holding a contemporaneous dispositional and termination hearing. Because father received a hearing and an opportunity to litigate the issue as to whether no treatment plan could be devised for him because of his unfitness, the proceedings were in substantial compliance with the statutory scheme. People ex rel. T.L.B., 148 P.3d 450 (Colo. App. 2006).   When rights may be terminated. A parent's rights may be terminated only as part of a corrective program and then only when the continuation of the parent-child relationship will obstruct the other measures taken by the court for the child's benefit. People in Interest of S.S.T., 38.Colo. App. 110, 553 P.2d 82 (1976).   In order to terminate parental rights, the trial court must find that the condition which results in the determination that the child is dependent and neglected will in all probability continue into the future and the court must further find that under no reasonable circumstances can the welfare of the child be served by a continuation of the parent-child relationship. People in Interest of M.B., 188 Colo. 370 , 535 P.2d 192 (1975).   In order to declare child neglected or dependent as a preliminary to separating him from his parents or custodians, the evidence must clearly establish its necessity, and state intervention should be limited to instances of neglect and dependency as defined in the Colorado Children's Code. People in Interest of T.H., 197 Colo. 247 , 593 P.2d 346 (1979).   Former standard for termination of parental rights was “best interests and welfare of child”. People in Interest of C.S., 200 Colo. 213 , 613 P.2d 1304 (1980); People in Interest of A.D., 706 P.2d 7 (Colo. App. 1985).   Standard set forth in former subsection (2)(a) is not unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. People in Interest of C.S., 200 Colo. 213 , 613 P.2d 1304 (1980).   Circumstances dictating termination of parental rights. Termination of parental rights following a determination of dependency and neglect should result only where there is a history of severe and continuous neglect by the particular parent whose rights are sought to be terminated, a substantial probability of future deprivation, and a determination that under no reasonable circumstances can the welfare of the child be served by a continuation of the legal relationship of the child with that parent. People in Interest of K.S., 33 Colo. App. 72, 515 P.2d 130 (1973).   A decree may terminate all parental rights of one or both parents in the child, but such an order must be based upon a finding of: (1) Severe and continuous neglect by the particular parent whose rights are at issue; (2) a substantial probability of continued deprivation; and (3) a determination that under no reasonable circumstances can the welfare of the child be served by a continuation of the legal relationship of the child with that parent. People in Interest of S.S.T., 38.Colo. App. 110, 553 P.2d 82 (1976).   The “best interest and welfare of the child” standard was met only when it is shown that: (1) there has been a history of severe and continuous neglect by the parent whose rights are sought to be terminated; (2) there is a substantial probability of future deprivation; and (3) under no reasonable circumstances can the welfare of the child be served by a continuation of the legal relationship of the child with the parent. People in Interest of C.S., 200 Colo. 213 , 613 P.2d 1304 (1980).   Fact insufficient to terminate rights. That the ongoing relationship of parent and child may not presently be a positive factor in the child's environment or development is insufficient, in and of itself, to warrant termination of parental rights in a dependency proceeding. People in Interest of S.S.T., 38.Colo. App. 110, 553 P.2d 82 (1976).   The possible rehabilitation of the parent is a matter which must be considered in a dependency proceeding in determining whether the parental relationship should be ended. People in Interest of S.S.T., 38.Colo. App. 110, 553 P.2d 82 (1976).   Adjudications of neglect or dependency are not made “as to” the parents, but rather relate only to the status of the child. People in Interest of P.D.S., 669 P.2d 627 (Colo. App. 1983).   To permit adjudication of dependency and neglect on basis of non-custodial parent's admission that child was not domiciled with her through no fault of her own where finder of fact has determined that child was not dependent and neglected would produce an absurd result and contravene the purposes of this title. People in Interest of T.R.W., 759 P.2d 768 (Colo. App. 1988).   Petition in dependency may not be used to punish parent. A petition in dependency may only be used to correct and improve the situation of the child, and may not be used to punish a parent for his alleged poor behavior by terminating his parental rights. People in Interest of S.S.T., 38.Colo. App. 110, 553 P.2d 82 (1976).   A proceeding to determine whether a child is, in fact, dependent or neglected is not designed to punish his parent or parents but is merely an attempt to determine if, at the time of adjudication, he does not, for whatever reason, have the benefit of parental guidance, concern, protection, or support to which he is entitled. People in Interest of S.S.T., 38.Colo. App. 110, 553 P.2d 82 (1976).   A petition in dependency may not be converted into a proceeding for stepparent adoption by the actions either of the parties, the referee, or the trial court. People in Interest of S.S.T., 38.Colo. App. 110, 553 P.2d 82 (1976).   An action in dependency may not be used as a means of making a child available for adoption in a stepparent adoption proceeding. Such tactic is inappropriate and contrary to the statutory language as well as the legislative intent of the Colorado Children's Code. People in Interest of S.S.T., 38.Colo. App. 110, 553 P.2d 82 (1976).   Procedures are not interchangeable. Since a petition in dependency concerns different matters and fulfills a different purpose than a proceeding for a stepparent adoption, procedures applicable to one may not be used to accomplish the ends of the other. People in Interest of S.S.T., 38.Colo. App. 110, 553 P.2d 82 (1976).   Adoption proceeding distinguished. The question of abandonment is one of the elements involved in adoption proceedings, but that does not change adoption proceedings to an abandonment proceeding under this section. Johnson v. Black, 137 Colo. 119 , 322 P.2d 99 (1958).   When a child has been adjudicated dependent or neglected, all matters related to that child's status must be addressed through the open dependency and neglect case. The dependency and neglect court maintains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over any such child. People in Interest of E.M., 2016 COA 38 M, 417 P.3d 843, aff'd sub nom. People in Interest of L.M., 2018 CO 34, 416 P.3d 875.   A county department of human services seeking to terminate through article 5, relinquishment and adoption, an incarcerated father's parental rights to children who had been adjudicated as dependent and neglected was required to proceed instead through the laws and courts created for this article 3, dependency and neglect. People in Interest of E.M., 2016 COA 38 M, 417 P.3d 843, aff'd sub nom. People in Interest of L.M., 2018 CO 34, 416 P.3d 875.   Court is not free to delegate its initial responsibility of electing between alternative dispositions provided by the Colorado Children's Code. In re People in Interest of C.P., 34 Colo. App. 54, 524 P.2d 316 (1974).   Court may ultimately delegate responsibility of placing children for adoption to the welfare department. In re People in Interest of C.P., 34 Colo. App. 54, 524 P.2d 316 (1974).   At which point it is not wise for court to interfere. Once the final selection of disposition has been made by the court and custody has been placed in the welfare department for adoption purposes, it is not wise for the court to interfere with the adoption process, even though the court has the power to do so. In re People in Interest of C.P., 34 Colo. App. 54, 524 P.2d 316 (1974).   Duty of court, aided by welfare department. It is the court which has the original and exclusive jurisdiction, and the duty, to adjudicate whether a child is dependent and neglected, to determine whether it is in the best interest of the child to terminate the legal relationship with the child's parents, and to make such further disposition as deemed necessary. If so requested by the court, it is the function of the welfare department to aid the court in the court's pursuit of its obligations. People in Interest of M.D.C.M., 34 Colo. App. 91, 522 P.2d 1234 (1974).   Authority of welfare department. Inasmuch as the general assembly has granted the court exclusive jurisdiction over adoptions, has expressly authorized adoptive placement, and has given the court the final and sole responsibility of approving or disapproving adoptions, it would be totally inconsistent to conclude that the welfare department or licensed placement agencies are the sole entities authorized to place a child for adoption following termination of parental rights (now parent-child legal relationship). People in Interest of M.D.C.M., 34 Colo. App. 91, 522 P.2d 1234 (1974).   No termination for “constructive” abandonment. The general assembly has not provided for the termination of parental rights on the ground of “constructive” abandonment. People in Interest of M.C.C., 641 P.2d 306 (Colo. App. 1982).   Implicit in each of options under this section is continuing jurisdiction of court entering the decree to supervise the custodian as well as the child. People in Interest of C.A.K., 628 P.2d 136 (Colo. App. 1980), rev'd on other grounds, 652 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1982).   Termination of parental rights supported by evidence. Johnson v. People in Interest of W__ J__, 170 Colo. 137 , 459 P.2d 579 (1969); In re People in Interest of A.R.S., 31 Colo. App. 268, 502 P.2d 92 (1972).   Decree terminating parental rights to a child not upheld. In re People in Interest of R.L., 32 Colo. App. 29, 505 P.2d 968 (1973).   Requirement that the court order an appropriate treatment plan implicitly authorizes the court to issue such orders as are reasonably necessary to implement that mandate. People v. Dist. Court, 731 P.2d 652 (Colo. 1987).   Protective orders were properly issued when confined to the reasonably necessary relief to promote the therapeutic objectives of the treatment plans, where no protection was provided for disclosure of plans for future criminal conduct or past criminal conduct not related to the treatment plans, and where communications between therapists and children and between the therapists and parents who had not engaged in sexually abusive conduct were not protected. People v. Dist. Court, 731 P.2d 652 (Colo. 1987).   Treatment plan. Nothing in subsection (1)(e)(I) grants a court the power to impose a treatment plan on a parent when the child has not been found to be dependent and neglected by that parent. People ex rel. U.S., 121 P.3d 326 (Colo. App. 2005).   A court may hold a dispositional hearing and find that no appropriate treatment plan can be devised for a parent after it has already approved an initial treatment plan for the parent at a prior hearing. The purposes of the Colorado Children's Code -- to preserve and strengthen family ties and protect the best interests of the child -- require courts to have the flexibility to modify or adopt new dispositional orders. People in Interest of Z.P.S., , 369 P.3d 814 .   A court may rely on evidence that was previously considered, or could have been presented, at a prior hearing when it modifies its orders at a subsequent hearing to hold that an appropriate treatment plan cannot be devised. People in Interest of Z.P.S., 2016 COA 20 , 369 P.3d 814.   The court properly ordered a treatment plan compelling action by father even though the jury verdict, which formed part of the basis for the ultimate order, did not expressly find that the father had committed an act of abuse. People in Interest of K.G., 876 P.2d 1 (Colo. App. 1993).   Where jury had found the child to be dependent and neglected as to the father, but had not found that the father had subjected the child to “mistreatment or abuse”, the juvenile court had the discretion to order a treatment plan that required the father to be evaluated and possibly treated for sexual aggression. People in Interest of C.L.S., 934 P.2d 851 (Colo. App. 1996).   The approval of a treatment plan which addresses the placement of a minor child following an adjudication of dependency and neglect constitutes a disposition and renders the adjudication final for purposes of appeal. People in Interest of B.M., 738 P.2d 45 (Colo. App. 1987).   Joint custody is a placement alternative under this section. People in Interest of A.A.G., 902 P.2d 437 (Colo. App. 1995), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 912 P.2d 1385 (Colo. 1996).   The appropriateness of a treatment plan must be measured against the factors which existed at the time of adoption of the plan and must be evaluated by its likelihood of success in reuniting the family. People in Interest of C.S.M., 805 P.2d 1129 (Colo. App. 1990).   The fact that a plan is not ultimately successful does not mean that it was therefore inappropriate. People in Interest of A.G.G., 899 P.2d 319 (Colo. App. 1995).   However, the court is required to make a finding that the treatment plan is appropriate. People in Interest of B.C., 2018 COA 45 , 418 P.3d 538.   Parent's irremediable conduct at a dispositional hearing negates requirement that the court devise a treatment plan since such plan would be doomed to failure and would contravene the purposes of the Colorado Children's Code. People in Interest of T.W., 797 P.2d 821 (Colo. App. 1990).   Nine-month period between the adoption of an appropriate treatment plan and the hearing to terminate parental rights was a reasonable amount of time for the mother to attempt to comply with the treatment plan. People in Interest of T.S.B., 757 P.2d 1112 (Colo. App. 1988), aff'd, 785 P.2d 132 (Colo. 1990).   Mother's due process rights were protected by her opportunity to challenge the department of human services' recommendation on the issue of her child's placement at both the motions and termination hearings. At both hearings, the trial court afforded mother a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in contravention of the department's placement recommendation. People in Interest of C.J., 2017 COA 157 , 410 P.3d 839.   Termination of parental rights supported by evidence. People in Interest of A.H., 736 P.2d 427 (Colo. App. 1987); People in Interest of C.R., 772 P.2d 672 (Colo. App. 1989).   An adjudication of dependency and neglect becomes final for purposes of appeal upon disposition. People in Interest of T.R.W., 759 P.2d 768 (Colo. App. 1988).   Subsection (1)(e) must be read in pari materia with § 19-3-604 (1)(b) since they are part of the same code and pertain to the same subject. People in Interest of T.W., 797 P.2d 821 (Colo. App. 1990).   Applied in People in Interest of H.A.C. v. D.C.C., 198 Colo. 260 , 599 P.2d 881 (1979); Lovato v. Dist. Court, 198 Colo. 419 , 601 P.2d 1072 (1979); People in Interest of B.W., 43 Colo. App. 235, 626 P.2d 742 (1981); People in Interest of E.A., 638 P.2d 278 (Colo. 1981); People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo. 1982); People in Interest of C.A.K., 652 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1982); People v. Coyle, 654 P.2d 815 (Colo. 1982); People in Interest of A.J., 757 P.2d 1165 (Colo. App. 1988).