2019 COA 43
Colo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Magana (mother) and Hill lived together; they had one child together (A.C.H.) and mother had a son (A.F.) from a prior relationship; Hill acted as A.F.’s father from infancy.
- After the couple separated, they followed an equal parenting schedule; later mother sought to relocate to Texas with the children and filed for allocation of parental responsibilities for A.C.H.
- Hill asserted he was A.F.’s psychological parent, sought allocation of parental responsibilities for both children, opposed relocation, and requested to be primary residential parent.
- The court-appointed PREs and the parties stipulated that Hill was A.F.’s psychological parent; the court entered a parental responsibilities order for both children, allocating substantial parenting time to Hill and reserving child support for later.
- The district court concluded it could not order Hill (a psychological parent) to pay child support for A.F. because the child support statute did not expressly impose financial obligations on psychological parents.
- Mother appealed only the denial of child support against Hill; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for child support consideration under section 14-10-115.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a psychological parent who sought and received parental responsibilities can be ordered to pay child support | Magana: A psychological parent who obtained parental responsibilities stands on equal footing and may be required to pay support | Hill: The child support statute refers to "parents" and does not include psychological parents; no duty to pay absent legal parenthood or exceptional circumstances | Yes — when a psychological parent has sought and received intended-to-be-permanent parental responsibilities (not mere guardianship), the court may impose child support under §14-10-115 |
| Whether existing precedent forecloses imposing support on nonbiological caregivers | Magana: Precedent allows support where nonbiological caregivers sought/assumed parental duties | Hill/Amicus: Prior Colorado cases do not recognize psychological parents as support obligors absent adoption or statutory definition | Court: Prior cases (Rodrick, Bonifas) support imposing support where a party sought and maintained parental role; cases denying support involved parties who disavowed the relationship |
| Scope of the holding — does every psychological parent incur support obligations? | Magana: (implicitly) support should follow when a psychological parent functions as a parent | Hill: Broad rule would penalize caring relatives and create perverse incentives | Limited: Holding applies only where psychological parent established as "parent" (not guardian) and sought & received permanent parental responsibilities; not a general rule creating new class of obligors |
| Effect on biological father's obligations | Mother: Not argued to displace biological father's duty | Hill: (not raised) | Court: Decision does not relieve a biological father of his support duty; psychological parent obligation can be imposed in addition to any biological parent duties |
Key Cases Cited
- People in Interest of P.D., 580 P.2d 836 (Colo. App. 1978) (custodian who can terminate custody at will held not bound to support absent adoption or continued obligation)
- In re Marriage of Bonifas, 879 P.2d 478 (Colo. App. 1994) (enforcement of contractual assumption of full financial responsibility for a child as basis for support)
- In re Marriage of Rodrick, 176 P.3d 806 (Colo. App. 2007) (parental responsibility order under § 14-10-123 can create duty to support a nonbiological child)
- People in Interest of B.S.M., 251 P.3d 511 (Colo. App. 2010) (refusal to impose support on a stepfather who disavowed custodial obligations)
- Sidman v. Sidman, 240 P.3d 360 (Colo. App. 2009) (income of guardians not includable for child support absent parental responsibility order)
- In re Marriage of Ashlock, 629 P.2d 1108 (Colo. App. 1981) (interpretation of "parent" in child support contexts to include adoptive parents)
- Moore v. McGillis, 408 P.3d 1196 (Alaska 2018) (psychological parent who litigated and obtained custody cannot avoid support obligations)
- A.S. v. I.S., 130 A.3d 763 (Pa. 2015) (equity prevents a stepparent who litigated for parental rights from disavowing support obligations)