In Re the Marriage of Wollert, 464 P.3d 703

Marriage dissolution case active ~14+ years; parties dispute parenting of their son (age 13) with extensive litigation and professional involvement (CFIs, PRE, reintegration therapists).
Court-ordered reintegration therapy: first Dr. Darr (ended 2018), then Sharon Feder (appointed 2018) who in Nov. 2019 issued a detailed treatment summary concluding Mother engaged in "severe parental alienation" and that the child was "in imminent psychological and emotional danger."
Father filed a verified emergency motion to restrict parenting time under § 14-10-129(4), incorporating Feder’s Summary and requesting a hearing within 14 days; Mother opposed and submitted a contrary therapist letter.
The magistrate denied the motion without a hearing, applying the Colorado Court of Appeals’ Slowinski standard (facial insufficiency: no set of facts could show imminent danger); the district court adopted that order.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted original review, rejected Slowinski, held that C.R.C.P. 7(b)(1)’s particularity requirement governs § 14-10-129(4) motions, found Father’s motion sufficiently particular, and remanded for a 14-day hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard for when § 14-10-129(4) requires a hearing within 14 days	Father: Apply C.R.C.P. 7(b)(1) — motion must state grounds with particularity; if so, statute mandates a hearing	Mother/Magistrate: Use Slowinski facial-insufficiency test (deny without hearing if no set of facts could show imminent danger)	Court: Overrules Slowinski; Rule 7(b)(1) particularity controls; a motion that meets it must be heard within 14 days
Whether Father’s motion met the standard	Motion incorporated Feder’s detailed Summary alleging long-term alienation and imminent emotional danger; thus particular and sufficient	Mother: Allegations are long‑standing, not truly "imminent," and conflicting therapist opinions undercut necessity of emergency relief	Court: Motion met Rule 7(b)(1) particularity; magistrate and district court erred in denying a hearing; remand for prompt hearing

In re Marriage of Slowinski, 199 P.3d 48 (Colo. App. 2008) (prior court-of-appeals standard for denying § 14-10-129(4) motions without hearing; overruled)
In re Marriage of Durie, 456 P.3d 463 (Colo. 2020) (motions — including post-decree relief — must satisfy C.R.C.P. 7(b)(1) particularity)
Warne v. Hall, 373 P.3d 588 (Colo. 2016) (discusses pleading standards under Rule 12(b)(5) and Twombly/Iqbal)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard that inspired modern pleading plausibility analysis)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (clarifies Twombly pleading principles)
People v. Rolfe, 962 P.2d 981 (Colo. 1998) (sanctions and discipline can follow improper emergency motions alleging imminent danger)
Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982) (deference to trial-court factfinding and credibility determinations)
Page v. Clark, 592 P.2d 792 (Colo. 1979) (trial judge’s presence crucial for credibility and weight of evidence)