Colorado’s second-highest court on Thursday determined the evidence did not support a Denver judge’s ruling terminating the legal relationship between a father and his child.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel identified numerous instances where the facts contradicted the trial judge’s findings that the father lacked stable housing and was unable to be “a full-time parent.”

“The uncontested evidence showed that father could provide appropriate care for the child during all of the parenting time allotted to him. The juvenile court, though, appeared to expect father to prove his ability to care for the child full-time, rather than requiring the (government) to prove that, notwithstanding his success at family time, father was unable or unwilling to provide appropriate care,” wrote Judge Elizabeth L. Harris in the Sept. 11 opinion. “In other words, the court improperly shifted the burden to father to show fitness, rather than requiring the (government) to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was unfit.”

As outlined in the court’s decision, Denver Human Services initiated child neglect proceedings in September 2023. At that time, the father, identified as C.F.C., was living and working out of state. None of the neglect allegations related to him.

After genetic testing confirmed the child was his, C.F.C. began a treatment plan that required him to spend time consistently and build a relationship with the child. He also had to obtain suitable housing and cooperate with the department.

C.F.C. moved to Colorado in May 2024 and the department sought to terminate his legal parent-child relationship after that. Presiding Juvenile Court Judge Elizabeth McCarthy held a hearing and granted the request, citing C.F.C.’s delay in finding stable housing and his parenting abilities.

The appellate panel found problems with each of those justifications.

First, Harris noted the timeline did not suggest C.F.C. delayed finding housing. After his paternity was confirmed, he wrapped up his work in Florida, sold property so he could relocate and returned to Colorado. Once there, he rented a home that a caseworker felt to be “appropriate safety-wise.” He then upgraded to a more suitable residence two months before the termination hearing.

“At the time of the hearing, father had a stable and appropriate residence for the child,” Harris wrote.

As to C.F.C.’s fitness as a parent, Harris explained that C.F.C. attended approximately 90% of his child visitations, and was absent due to illness or medical procedures.

“The Department had no concerns about father’s visits with the child,” she observed. Moreover, the human services department was the one that “either disregarded, or delayed implementation of, the family time supervisor’s recommendations.”

A caseworker’s testimony about unsupervised parenting time “turned out to be false,” and the caseworker’s further testimony that C.F.C. chose not to expand his visits “also turned out to be wrong,” wrote Harris.

Moreover, C.F.C. had a grown daughter, indicating he already had demonstrated parenting abilities.

Harris also slammed the department for arguing at the termination hearing that C.F.C. “doesn’t really have a solid plan for taking care of (the child) for the next 17 years.”

“We wonder what sort of seventeen-year plan counsel thought father should have presented to the court to prove his fitness,” she wrote. “And we are troubled by the Department and the court’s focus on the fact that father’s job might sometimes require him to leave the child with family members or a babysitter.”

The panel reversed McCarthy’s decision.

The case is People in the Interest of C.C.