In re the Marriage of Williams and Tibbetts
2018 COA 117
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Parents divorced in 2011; their stipulated parenting plan was incorporated into the decree and later modified by stipulation in 2014.
- In 2016 father moved to terminate the parenting plan so the child (born Nov. 14, 1999) could decide her own schedule; magistrate denied the motion, finding the plan still appropriate for the then‑17‑year‑old.
- The district court affirmed the magistrate’s order on review; father appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals raising errors about delegation of parenting time, the applicable legal standard, alleged endangerment, alienation, and best interests.
- Father filed his opening brief one day before the child turned 18; mother moved to dismiss the appeal as moot after the child reached 18.
- The Court of Appeals held that once the child turned 18 she attained legal competence to make her own visitation decisions and the parenting‑time order was no longer enforceable as to her, rendering the appeal moot.
- The court denied mother’s request for appellate fees, finding father’s arguments were nonfrivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Tibbetts (Father) Argument | Williams (Mother) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal of the parenting‑time order is moot when the child turns 18 | Appeal not moot; review should proceed | Appeal moot because child is now an adult and parenting orders are unenforceable as to her | Moot: once child turned 18 parenting orders have no practical legal effect and appeal dismissed |
| Whether court may delegate parenting‑time decisions to both parents | Court can delegate specific parameters to parents to work out between them | Court cannot abdicate responsibility; delegation improper when parents may not cooperate | Not reached on merits as moot; court noted prior authority allows limited delegation when parents can cooperate |
| Whether possible contempt/enforcement concerns preserve appeal | Contempt risk preserves review because order could be enforced against a parent | Parenting‑time orders cannot be enforced against the adult child; parents cannot be forced to control adult child; contempt not viable | Contempt/enforcement argument fails — order not enforceable against adult child and cannot compel parents to control her |
| Whether the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception applies | Issue of delegation could recur and evade review so court should decide | Exception does not apply here | Exception refused: does not apply to these parents and no showing it would evade review for others |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Hartley, 886 P.2d 665 (Colo. 1994) (discussed continuing jurisdiction over custody and dictum on emancipation age)
- Wells v. Barile, 358 P.3d 583 (Alaska 2015) (holding custody challenge moot after child turned 18 absent child‑support issues)
- People v. Lockhart, 699 P.2d 1332 (Colo. 1985) (a party cannot be held in contempt for refusing to do what is impossible)
- In re Marriage of Plummer, 735 P.2d 165 (Colo. 1987) (discussing child support/emancipation and related jurisdictional considerations)