In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning B.R.D.
2012 COA 63
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Parents of a boy and a couple who had custody arrangement disagree over parenting time and decision-making authority.
- Initially, the couple was awarded sole decision-making responsibility, primary residential caretaking, and majority parenting time.
- Father later sought additional parenting time and shared decision-making; mother also sought more time and authority.
- Trial court relied on an endangerment standard from M.J.K. and Troxel-related considerations in evaluating modification.
- Court found the boy deeply attached to all parties and granted the couple primary residence with father/mother alternating weekends.
- Father appealed, arguing the court failed to apply the correct standard and presumptions favoring a parent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court apply the correct standard for modification? | Gordon contends M.J.K. standard was misapplied. | Decker argues the established standard supported modification. | No; remand to apply the proper standard (D.I.S./Troxel framework). |
| Does Troxel/D.I.S. alter the presumption in favor of the parent over a non-parent? | Gordon should have the presumption as a parent. | Couple relied on non-parent framework. | Yes; presumption in favor of the parent applies, shifting burden to non-parent. |
| What standard of proof applies when a non-parent seeks modification against a fit parent? | Parent bears presumptive best-interest burden; modification sought by non-parent must show best interests. | Non-parent should prove modification is in the child's best interests. | Preponderance of the evidence governs; burden shifted to non-parent to prove best interests. |
| What must the trial court do on remand regarding findings and special factors? | Remand consistent with new framework and special factors supporting modification. | Maintain current allocation if best interests supported. | Remand with findings under the 14-10-124(1.5), 14-10-129(2), and 14-10-181(2) framework; reweigh evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Parental Responsibilities of M.J.K., 200 P.3d 1106 (Colo.App.2008) (begins use of endangerment standard and shifts analysis in non-parent modification cases)
- In re DIS., 249 P.3d 775 (Colo.2011) (Troxel presumption prevails; guardian bears burden of proof in modifications)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights receive due process protection and special weight in decisions)
- In re Parental Responsibilities of C.A., 137 P.3d 318 (Colo.2006) (special weight owed to parental determinations; factors for best interests)
- In re Custody of C.C.R.S., 892 P.2d 246 (Colo.1995) (parental right to custody; rebuttal by non-parent requires best interests evidence)
- In re Marriage of Hatton, 160 P.3d 326 (Colo.App.2007) (framework for modifying parental responsibilities; three-step analysis)