A Larimer County judge was wrong to conclude that a child’s environment was harmful and that a jury had acted unreasonably by concluding otherwise, the state’s Court of Appeals determined on Thursday.

Under Colorado law, a court may deem a child to be dependent or neglected if, among other things, the environment is “injurious to his or her welfare.” The Colorado Supreme Court has clarified that there need not be a finding that a particular parent is responsible for causing such circumstances, only that the harmful environment exists.

Larimer County initiated its child welfare case involving a girl, E.O. in June 2021. The county’s department of human services alleged that E.O.’s mother had been physically and emotionally abusive. E.O.’s father admitted the girl was in an injurious environment, but the mother opted for a jury trial.

During the two-day proceedings, jurors heard competing representations about E.O.’s environment. The mother argued that E.O.’s father had “alienated” the child against her by convincing E.O. to lie about her mother’s abuse.

The county, on the other hand, presented testimony that the mother was actually physically and verbally abusive to E.O.

The jury ultimately decided that E.O.’s environment was not injurious to her welfare. Nevertheless, Larimer County asked then-District Court Judge Julie Kunce Field to enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Such a move would allow Field to disregard the jury’s verdict if no reasonable person could reach the same conclusion after hearing the evidence.

Field granted the government’s request after concluding the evidence pointed to either E.O.’s mother being abusive or E.O.’s father turning her against her mother. Either scenario would amount to E.O. being in a harmful environment under the law.

“The Court has carefully weighed its decision to set aside the verdict of this jury. The Court does not make this determination lightly or without a great deal of thought and reflection on the role of a jury in this type of case, and the due process rights of those involved,” she wrote on Sept. 29. “But the Court does not discern any other conclusion that can logically be applied to the law and the evidence presented here other than that this Child must be adjudicated as dependent and neglected.”

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals, upon reviewing the case, disagreed that the jury reached an unreasonable conclusion. Jurors did not have to accept, based on the evidence, that E.O. was in an injurious environment and could have disbelieved both sets of allegations about her parents.

“Based on this record, there were disputed issues of material fact regarding both whether mother abused the child and whether father unduly influenced the child,” wrote Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov for the panel. “Because the evidence was disputed as to both situations, the jury could have inferred that mother did not abuse the child but that the child fabricated the allegations for reasons other than father’s influence over her.”

Ruchi Kapoor, the attorney for E.O.’s mother, said the Court of Appeals’ ruling means that Larimer County must now “get out of this family’s life, full stop.”

“Mom has only had supervised visitation with her child since the inception of the case, which means that, once the department is done, she must essentially reunify with her kiddo,” Kapoor said. “That will require family therapy to repair the bonds that were severed.”

She added the human services department’s “overreaction” to the allegations of abuse illustrated the power that government agencies have over families’ lives.

The case is People in the Interest of E.O.