Colorado’s second-highest court clarified on Thursday that caseworkers testifying as experts in child neglect cases are subject to the same safeguards for reliability that other “specialized knowledge” testimony must satisfy.

Under the rules of evidence, judges can deem a witness an expert by virtue of their knowledge, skills, experience, training or education. After being qualified, the witness can offer opinions as an expert. The process is intended to ensure a witness is qualified to opine and their statements will be useful to the jury.

In a child neglect case out of Arapahoe County, the mother moved to exclude the expert testimony of three caseworkers, arguing it was unreliable, unhelpful and unnecessarily harmful. Specifically, the testimony allegedly did not rely on objective and reliable principles.

District Court Judge Shay Whitaker declined to hold a hearing to explore the reliability and relevance of the caseworkers’ opinions. She opted to wait until the jury trial to determine if the testimony met the standard for admissibility.

However, over the mother’s objection, Whitaker qualified each caseworker as an expert without elaboration. They then testified that:

• The child was not safe with the mother
• The child’s environment would not be safe with the mother
• They had concerns about the mother’s mental health and substance use
• The mother’s ability to care for the child was impaired

A jury determined the child was neglected, a step that can eventually lead to the termination of the legal parent-child relationship.

The mother appealed, arguing Whitaker’s failure to find that the caseworkers’ testimony met the reliability standards for specialized knowledge was an error.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel agreed.

Judge Karl L. Schock, in the Sept. 4 opinion, explained that Colorado Supreme Court precedent requires judges to specifically make findings about the principles underlying the expert testimony, among other things. Although the analysis applies to scientific experts, it encompasses experienced-based knowledge, too.

“That does not mean that all caseworker testimony is subject to (that process). Caseworkers may, and often do, testify as fact witnesses regarding their own observations and experiences with the child and the family,” Schock wrote. “But to the extent a caseworker offers expert opinions based on ‘scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge,'” judges must screen it for reliability and make findings when there is an objection.

In the Arapahoe County case, Whitaker did not address the mother’s concerns about the reliability or helpfulness of the caseworkers’ opinions.

The witnesses “offered little information about the methods or principles underlying their opinions,” wrote Schock. One caseworker “could not identify any objective basis for determining whether a child is in danger and acknowledged that her conclusion was based on ‘subjective’ observations.”

Because three different experts testified about child neglect and it was critical evidence for the government, the panel concluded Whitker’s allowance of potentially unreliable testimony affected the outcome. It reversed the neglect finding and ordered a new trial.

The Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel, which represents indigent parents in child neglect cases and also represented the Arapahoe County mother, agreed with the panel’s conclusion.

“Given the constitutional ramifications of the state involving itself in a family’s life, it is critical that the government support its cases with reliable evidence,” said Appellate Director Zaven Saroyan.

The case is People in the Interest of A.F.