Colorado’s second-highest court last week overturned a Jefferson County judge’s decision that terminated a man’s legal relationship with his children, concluding it was impossible for him to fulfill the terms of his treatment plan.

Jeffco initiated child neglect proceedings in September 2022 against a mother, a father identified as J.T.Q., and their four children. The parents admitted to the county’s allegations and a judge adopted a treatment plan for the parents.

Under Colorado law, courts can terminate a parent-child relationship if the child has been neglected, the parent has not fulfilled the obligations of a treatment plan and the parent is unlikely to become fit within a reasonable time. The goal of the treatment plan is to help a parent become fit to care for their child.

However, J.T.Q. was incarcerated for the entirety of the child neglect case. His treatment plan required him to refrain from substance use, take random urine tests, complete a drug evaluation, attend a parenting class and participate in family time. Although there was a recognition J.T.Q.’s incarceration would render him unable to fulfill some of those components, it was unclear which requirements were on hold until his release.

At a hearing to decide whether to terminate J.T.Q.’s legal rights over his children, then-District Court Judge Ann Gail Meinster instead held J.T.Q. responsible for failing to comply with the “reasonable and appropriate” treatment plan.

She acknowledged J.T.Q. participated in the services available to him, but had ultimately not fulfilled the conditions. Meinster also cited J.TQ.’s domestic violence charges, criminal history and outstanding warrants in her ruling.

But a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals disagreed with those conclusions. First, nothing in the treatment plan pertained to domestic violence, meaning J.T.Q. was not required to address that issue. The panel also found no indication J.T.Q. had outstanding warrants at the time.

As for the terms of the treatment plan, Judge Matthew D. Grove explained the failure to excuse J.T.Q. from conditions he could not realistically fulfill while incarcerated rendered his noncompliance “essentially assured.”

“The court failed to clarify which parts of father’s treatment plan would be held in abeyance given father’s incarceration, and later used against father his noncompliance with aspects of his treatment plan that were impossible to comply with while incarcerated,” Grove wrote in the Nov. 27 opinion.

The panel noted J.T.Q. did take the classes that were available to him, but had no opportunity to complete drug testing or substance abuse treatment. Moreover, J.T.Q. spoke to his children routinely, with occasional disruptions that were outside of J.T.Q.’s control.

“Given this record and under these circumstances, it appears it was impossible for father to participate in substance use evaluation and treatment, (drug testing), and consistent family time while he was incarcerated,” Grove concluded.

The panel overturned the decision to terminate J.T.Q.’s parental rights.

The case is People in the Interest of A.A.Q. et al.