Pass 30 | Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona Audit

All 50 state notices remain on publication hold.
This is independent public-interest research, not legal advice, an official agency form, attorney-reviewed material or certified legal guidance. A notice does not initiate an appeal, pause a deadline, prevent an investigation or override court authority. Follow the actual agency or court notice, verify the current rule and case posture, and preserve proof of receipt and filing.

Colorado — founded finding; 90 calendar days from notice date

State-level appeal and county process

Colorado county departments make findings commonly classified as founded, inconclusive or unfounded following a qualifying assessment. The county's founded finding is an agency determination recorded in the state automated case-management system; it is not itself a juvenile-court adjudication or criminal conviction.
12 CCR 2509-2, §7.104.15 requires written notice to the person found responsible by first-class mail. The notice must include the finding details, information about access/disclosure, any county dispute-resolution process, and the right to a state-level appeal under §§7.111–7.112. Counties may offer a local dispute-resolution process, but the state appeal is a separate route.
Under §7.111, a person found responsible has 90 calendar days from the date of the Notice of Founded Finding to submit a written state appeal. The state CDHS CAMDRS page likewise says 90 calendar days from the date of the county notice and says the notice itself displays the due date. The rule provides for good cause to be shown for a late appeal; do not rely on that exception as a substitute for timely filing.
The appeal must include contact information, a statement explaining the basis for challenge, and a copy of the county Notice of Founded Finding. It is submitted to the Colorado Department of Human Services' Child and Adult Mistreatment Dispute Review Section (CAMDRS), online or by mail to 3550 W. Oxford Ave., Denver, CO 80236.
The grounds are limited: the finding is not supported by a preponderance of credible evidence, or the conduct found does not meet the statutory/regulatory definition of abuse or neglect. The state obtains the county record; the appellant has access to the record subject to required confidentiality redactions.
The department and appellant have up to 120 calendar days from CAMDRS receipt to resolve the appeal, extendable by agreement in the circumstances stated in the rule. If unresolved, the department forwards the appeal to the Office of Administrative Courts for a fair hearing before an ALJ.
The founded finding continues to be used for safety/risk assessment, employment and background screening while the administrative appeal is pending. A pending dependency/neglect case or criminal prosecution does not automatically eliminate the appeal right; the state may hold the administrative process in abeyance under the conditions in §7.111(G).

Source/version caution

The Colorado Secretary of State's published 12 CCR 2509-2 compilation and CDHS CAMDRS guidance support the 90-day state appeal route. The exact notice remains essential because it identifies the date and calculated due date. A local county dispute process, the state administrative appeal and a juvenile-court appeal are not interchangeable.

Colorado Secretary of State — 12 CCR 2509-2 · CDHS CAMDRS — appeal process and filing details · 12 CCR 2509-2 §7.111 — state appeal process

New Mexico — two-stage review; separate 10-day requests

Investigation decision and who receives review rights

8.10.3 NMAC describes a substantiated report as one in which a parent, guardian, resource family, pre-adoptive parent or treatment foster-care parent is identified as the perpetrator or as failing to protect, and credible evidence supports the conclusion that the child was abused or neglected under the Children's Code. A substantiated investigative report is distinct from a pending or completed children's-court case.
The investigation decision is generally due within 45 days after the Statewide Central Intake accepts the report, with a supervisor-approved extension of up to another 30 days. This is an investigation-completion clock, not an appeal deadline.
For a substantiated investigation that is not the subject of a pending children's-court case, §8.10.3.22(B) requires written notice that the decision may be reviewed through PSD's administrative-review process. The person must request that review in writing to PSD within 10 days of the action or notice of the proposed action.
If the administrative review upholds substantiation, PSD must send a formal letter explaining the upheld decision and the right to CYFD administrative hearing. Under §8.10.3.22(C), the person must request the hearing in writing to the PSD Director's Office within a second 10-day period, measured from the action.
The rules do not say these two request periods are one combined 20-day period. They are separate steps with separate requests and different destinations. The first is an informal administrative review; the second is a formal administrative hearing before an impartial hearing officer under 8.8.4 NMAC.
8.8.2 NMAC expressly excludes a substantiation issue already in litigation in a pending children's-court case from the administrative hearing route described there. Court litigation and the agency review route must therefore be checked against the actual case posture.
Under 8.8.4 NMAC, the hearing officer must not have been involved in the underlying administrative decision. The officer may be a CYFD employee and need not be an attorney. The rules provide for discovery, subpoenas, presentation and examination of witnesses, cross-examination, exhibits and a written recommended decision to the Secretary. The hearing is generally to be held within 180 days after the hearing office receives the agency memorandum, subject to extensions for extenuating circumstances.

Trigger and currentness caution

The text of §8.10.3.22 uses the phrase “10 days of the action or notice of the proposed action” for the first step and “10 days of the action” for the second. It does not expressly label these periods calendar days or working days in that section. Do not silently convert them into a 10-business-day rule. Obtain the actual notice and confirm the date CYFD treats as the action date. The current online NMAC page identifies the relevant investigation provisions as amended May 25, 2021; the administrative appeals chapter identifies a March 15, 2016 effective date.

Official New Mexico Register — 8.10.3 NMAC, especially §8.10.3.22 · Official New Mexico Register — 8.8.2 NMAC, review/hearing eligibility · Official New Mexico Register — 8.8.4 NMAC, administrative appeals hearings

Arizona — 20 days from mailing or personal service; hearing before registry entry

Statute, current rulemaking and the pre-registry process

Arizona DCS uses a proposed-substantiated finding for a non-dependency case. The Protective Services Review Team (PSRT) reviews proposed findings and sends the person a notice of the proposed substantiation and right to challenge it before Central Registry entry. The department's public PSRT page describes this review and the later Office of Administrative Hearings process.
A.R.S. §8-811(B) requires DCS to send the notice by first-class mail or personal service no more than 14 days after completion of the investigation. Under §8-811(C), a hearing request must be received by DCS within 20 days after the department mails or personally serves the notice. This is not a 20-day-from-receipt deadline.
After a timely request, DCS must conduct a review and give the accused person an opportunity to provide written or verbal information. If DCS determines the proposed finding is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, it must amend the report and no hearing is held. If it does not amend the finding within 60 days after receiving the hearing request, the statute provides a right to a hearing, subject to the statutory exclusions.
Some people are legally excluded from the administrative hearing because the same allegations are already at issue in pending civil, criminal, administrative or juvenile proceedings, or because a court or ALJ has already made findings or a dependency/termination ruling applies. The statute provides a route to a later hearing in specified circumstances when the parallel proceeding ends without a finding of abuse or neglect. This is a significant eligibility limitation; it is not accurate to say every proposed finding always receives an immediate agency hearing.
At the hearing, the ALJ decides whether the proposed finding is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. If not, the department must amend the information or finding. If supported, the finding is entered as substantiated. The Director reviews the ALJ recommended decision under A.R.S. §41-1092.08 and the amended R21-1-507; the Director has 30 days to review and may accept, reject or modify only on the stated grounds. The Director's final administrative decision is subject to judicial review under A.R.S. Title 12, Chapter 7, Article 6.
Registry placement follows the statutory and regulatory process. The amended R21-1-508 provides for entry if the person does not appeal, and generally no later than 35 days after the final administrative decision if substantiation is upheld. A court finding can independently trigger entry under the statute/rule.
R21-1-509 establishes registry retention tiers of 0, 5, 15 or 25 years based on severity/type and risk. The rule states that the designated retention length is not appealable. R21-1-510 creates an early-removal application process after specified minimum portions of the tier period have elapsed; that is distinct from a timely challenge to the proposed substantiation.

Important 2025 rule amendment

Arizona's final rulemaking package R25-289 was effective December 3, 2025 and amended the DCS substantiation/registry rules. The final package renumbered and revised portions of Article 5; do not rely on an older standalone copy of R21-1-503 as though it were the current complete rule. For the deadline, the controlling current statute is explicit: the request must be received within 20 days after mailing or personal service. The final rulemaking package is the best source for the revised process, registry tiers and Director review.

Arizona Legislature — A.R.S. §8-811 · Arizona Secretary of State — final rulemaking R25-289 (Dec. 26, 2025 publication; effective Dec. 3, 2025) · Arizona DCS — Protective Services Review Team · Arizona DCS — after investigation FAQ

Cross-state findings

Colorado: 90 calendar days from the date on the county Notice of Founded Finding; state CAMDRS resolution phase up to 120 days, then possible ALJ hearing.
New Mexico: first written request within 10 days of the action/proposed-action notice; if upheld, a separate written hearing request within 10 days of the action identified in the uphold notice. The rule's trigger wording and day-count convention require care.
Arizona: request must be received within 20 days after mailing or personal service; DCS review precedes an ALJ hearing, and statutory exclusions may affect eligibility.
Registry: Colorado's founded finding remains in screening/risk use during appeal; New Mexico's investigation finding and pending children's-court case are distinct procedural tracks; Arizona's pre-registry hearing and tiered registry retention rules are expressly linked but separate stages.

Scope and release decision

This pass focused on finding classifications, appeal rights, procedural deadlines and registry consequences. It did not complete a clause-by-clause audit of interviews, home entry, emergency removal, all records-access rights, retention/expungement or every local county practice. Arizona's current rules were checked against the December 2025 final rulemaking and the statutory text; Colorado was checked against the state rule compilation and CDHS guidance; New Mexico was checked against the current online NMAC text and the CYFD administrative appeals rules.

Release decision: HOLD. No state is cleared by this pass. All 50 state notices remain research drafts. No attorney review, legal certification or case-specific legal suitability is claimed. Do not change the PDFs based solely on this targeted research pass.

← Pass 29 audit · Pass 28 audit · Project homepage