Community Corner
Arapahoe Case Was Dismissed. The Child Stayed in Kansas
Colorado's Supreme Court says parents can appeal in cases like this one. Attorney Dave Rich explains what it means for families.
This is a paid post contributed by a Patch Community Partner. The views expressed in this post are the author's own, and the information presented has not been verified by Patch.
On September 14, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled 5 to 2 that an Arapahoe County father can appeal the dismissal of a dependency and neglect case filed against him. That sounds backward. When a child welfare case is dismissed, the family usually goes home and the matter is over. In T.L.P. v. People, the dismissal came after his daughter had already been moved to her mother in Kansas, and it left that move in place with no way for him to challenge it.
According to the opinion, the father had been the girl's primary caregiver for most of her life. Starting in December 2024, he went to the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services several times and asked the agency to find the child's mother and get her help raising their daughter. In June 2025, after an agitated phone call, a caseworker and supervisor made an unannounced home visit. They reported smelling marijuana and raised concerns about the child's appearance and the father's mental health. The county obtained a removal order the same day and filed a dependency and neglect petition.
A magistrate then granted the county's request to place the child with her mother in Kansas. The father asked a district judge to review that decision. Before the review happened, the county moved to dismiss the case, saying the child was now with a safe and sober caregiver. The court dismissed over the father's objection and ruled his request for review moot. The Colorado Court of Appeals then dismissed his appeal, finding there was no final order to appeal.
The Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Hood, writing for the majority, concluded that the dismissal did not return the family to where it started. It locked in the effects of a temporary order and ended the court's jurisdiction, leaving the father without his daughter and without a way to contest the placement. The case now goes back to the Court of Appeals. The ruling does not decide whether the removal was proper, and it does not return the child to her father.
Dave Rich, founder and managing attorney of Flatiron Legal Advisors and a Colorado family law attorney with 18 years of experience, said the ruling exposes a gap that many parents never see coming.
"Most parents assume a dismissal is good news, and usually it is," Rich said. "This case shows how a dismissal can end the case without undoing what already happened. The child was in another state, and the only door left open was to start over in a different court."
That different court is the problem. In a dependency and neglect case, parents are entitled to appointed counsel. If the father had been forced to file a new custody case, called an allocation of parental responsibilities, he would have had no guaranteed lawyer. The majority wrote that a separate custody case also could not review whether the county used its authority properly in the first place.
Two justices dissented. Justice Blanco, joined by Chief Justice Márquez, argued that the temporary order ended when the case was dismissed and that the father's proper path was a domestic relations case. The dissent also made a point Rich thinks every unmarried parent should hear. Because there was no custody order, both parents held equal legal rights to the child, even though the father had done nearly all of the parenting.
"Being the parent who does the work is not the same as having an order that says so," Rich said. "If you are raising a child and there is no court order, you have nothing to show a caseworker, a judge, or another state. That is the most fixable problem in this whole case."
He was careful about the other lesson. The father in this case went to the county asking for help, and that contact is where the case began. Rich does not want parents to stop asking for help. He wants them to understand what a caseworker conversation is.
"Caseworkers are there to help families, and many of them do," he said. "But every conversation is also an assessment. Parents should know that before they walk in, especially if they are already struggling."
The ruling arrives a few months after a separate change to the same body of law. In 2026, the General Assembly amended the Children's Code to confirm that children, through their guardian ad litem or counsel for youth, can object when the state tries to dismiss a petition before an adjudication hearing.
Rich's advice to Colorado parents is short. If you are raising a child with no custody order, talk to a family law attorney about getting one. If a caseworker contacts you, take notes on every call and visit, and ask for anything important in writing. If a removal order is entered, ask for your appointed attorney right away and do not wait to object to a placement you disagree with. Requests for review of a magistrate's order carry short deadlines, and as this case shows, the window can close in ways that are hard to reopen.
"The family in this case spent more than a year fighting over whether he was even allowed to appeal," Rich said. "Everything that happens in the first few weeks matters. That is when a lawyer can do the most."
About Flatiron Legal Advisors, PLLC
Flatiron Legal Advisors, PLLC is a multi-state law firm with Colorado offices in Denver and Colorado Springs. The firm handles family law, estate planning, probate, criminal defense, real estate, and related matters.
To learn more, visit flatironlegal.com.
This post is an advertorial piece contributed by a Patch Community Partner, a local brand partner. To learn more, click here.