Critical Analysis of Colorado House Bill 25-1200: Modifications to the Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman (CPO)

Overview

House Bill 25-1200 proposes various modifications to the Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman (CPO), focusing on reorganizing statutes, clarifying the scope of investigations, access to information, confidentiality, and outreach efforts. While it appears to expand the role of the Ombudsman, the bill raises critical questions about whether it truly benefits children and families or primarily serves to shield government agencies—particularly CPS and child welfare services—from meaningful accountability.

Key Concerns

  1. Does the Bill Expand Accountability or Protect Agencies?

One of the primary issues with the CPO’s current structure is that it appears to operate within the system rather than as an independent watchdog. HB25-1200 does little to change that fundamental issue.

  • Ombudsman Cannot Intervene in Legal Proceedings

➝ The bill explicitly bars the CPO from testifying or providing records in civil or criminal cases (§19-3.3-103(1)(a)(I)(C)). This means:

  • Families pursuing legal action against CPS or the state cannot access the Ombudsman’s findings. This is absurd!
  • Whistleblower complaints or systemic issues may be investigated but never formally used in court to hold agencies accountable.
  • While the bill says the Ombudsman can “recommend action,” it lacks enforcement power—making recommendations essentially toothless.
  • Shielding CPS & Government Agencies from Transparency

➝ The bill maintains strict confidentiality (§19-3.3-103.5(2)) over complaints and investigations. While confidentiality may protect children in some cases, it also allows CPS and child welfare agencies to evade public scrutiny.

  • No provisions ensure wronged families receive findings of investigations.
  • Complaints remain hidden from public view, preventing advocacy groups from using them for systemic reform efforts.
  1. Limited Power to Enforce Findings
  • No Subpoena Power

➝ The bill clearly states that the Ombudsman has no subpoena power (§19-3.3-103.4(4)), meaning:

  • They cannot compel agencies to turn over documents, records, or testimony.
  • If CPS refuses to cooperate, the Ombudsman has no legal recourse.
  • No Mechanism for Holding Agencies Accountable

➝ While the bill allows the Ombudsman to make policy recommendations, it does not mandate compliance from CPS or other government entities.

  • No Direct Help for Families

➝ The Ombudsman can receive complaints but cannot intervene in family court cases or ensure due process violations are corrected (§19-3.3-103(5)).

  • Families dealing with wrongful CPS investigations or custody disputes get no direct relief from the Ombudsman.
  1. Selective Access to Information
  • The bill grants the Ombudsman access to certain child welfare records, including:
  • CPS case files (§19-3.3-103.4(1)(a))
  • Child fatality review reports (§19-3.3-103.4(1)(c)(I))
  • Some law enforcement & coroner reports (§19-3.3-103.4(1)(b))
  • However, the Ombudsman is denied access to:
  • Judicial records related to child protection cases (§19-3.3-103(2)(a)(III)).
  • Attorneys’ records, including those from court-appointed advocates (§19-3.3-103(2)(a)(III)).
  • Independent child evaluations, which are often crucial in cases of wrongful removal.

This creates a one-sided narrative in which the Ombudsman only sees CPS’s version of events, not the full context.

  1. Limited Oversight of State-Run Facilities
  • The bill grants the Ombudsman access to residential child care facilities, but only if:
  • The facility allows it and coordinates the visit (§19-3.3-112(1)(a)).
  • A child or concerned individual requests an investigation (§19-3.3-112(1)(a)(I)-(II)).
  • The facility controls the access, which means abusive or negligent institutions could easily deny the Ombudsman entry.
  • Lack of Unannounced Visits

➝ The Ombudsman cannot conduct surprise inspections, only scheduled ones with prior notice (§19-3.3-112(3)(c))—which defeats the purpose of oversight.

  1. Cosmetic Outreach Efforts

The bill emphasizes educational outreach—such as:

  • Posting Ombudsman complaint materials in child facilities (§19-3.3-112(2)(b)).
  • Conducting workshops for youth on how to report abuse (§19-3.3-112(2)(d)).

While outreach is important, it does not compensate for the lack of enforcement power.

  • If an agency does not fear consequences, outreach does little to protect children.
  • Kids in facilities may be too afraid to report if they know complaints go nowhere.

Conclusion: Does HB25-1200 Serve Children & Families?

NO!

While the bill strengthens the Ombudsman’s ability to gather information, it stops short of creating real accountability.

The most problematic issues are:

  • No enforcement power → CPS and state agencies can ignore recommendations.
  • No subpoena power → Critical evidence may remain hidden.
  • Shielding agencies from legal scrutiny → Ombudsman findings cannot be used in court.
  • Lack of transparency → Complaints and reports remain confidential and undisclosed to the public.

If the true goal of HB25-1200 were to protect children, it would:

✅ Grant subpoena power to access all relevant records.

✅ Require findings to be shared with complainants.

✅ Allow reports to be used in court against agencies that violate due process.

✅ Ensure Ombudsman recommendations are enforceable.

Instead, the bill seems more focused on managing complaints rather than fixing systemic problems. The Ombudsman acts as a pressure-release valve, making it seem like the system is being held accountable—when in reality, CPS and government agencies retain full control.

Final Recommendation

Oppose or Amend HB25-1200 to include real accountability measures.

Without stronger enforcement, this bill risks reinforcing a system where families continue to suffer from wrongful removals, CPS misconduct, and lack of due process—without any real recourse.