Marriage of McCandless
24CA1671
Colo. Ct. App.May 29, 2025Background
- In 2023, the McCandlesses divorced; the El Paso County District Court issued permanent orders regarding parenting time.
- Danielle McCandless (mother) intended to move from Colorado to New York in summer 2024 and requested primary parenting time so the child could move with her.
- The court ruled mother would have primary parenting when she relocates; until then, equal parenting time was ordered.
- Michael McCandless (father) moved in 2024 to modify parenting time, seeking to keep the child in Colorado and requesting recalculation of child support and appointment of a Child and Family Investigator (CFI).
- The district court denied all of father’s motions without holding a hearing, finding insufficient new facts to justify modification.
- Father appealed, raising due process, subject matter jurisdiction, and substantive arguments against the lower court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | McCandless (Father) Argument | McCandless (Mother) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Modify Parenting Time | Mother’s move harms child’s interests, new facts since orders | No change in circumstances, all facts previously considered | Motion denied—no new facts since orders, no hearing needed |
| Due Process (Hearing Required) | Denial without hearing violated due process | Written motion provided adequate opportunity | No due process violation—written process sufficient |
| Appointment of Child and Family Investigator (CFI) | Needed to reassess parenting time | No basis since modification motion lacks merit | Denial affirmed—derivative of parenting time denial |
| Subject Matter Jurisdiction | Court lacked jurisdiction without relocation motion by mother | Court had broad jurisdiction to determine parental responsibilities | Argument rejected—court has general subject matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Jones, 703 P.2d 1328 (Colo. App. 1985) (motion to modify parenting time requires new facts or changed circumstances)
- Spahmer v. Gullette, 113 P.3d 158 (Colo. 2005) (initial allocation must consider where parties intend to live)
- In re Marriage of Tognoni, 313 P.3d 655 (Colo. App. 2011) (timely appeal jurisdiction and scope on prior orders)
- In re Marriage of Stroud, 631 P.2d 168 (Colo. 1981) (distinction between jurisdictional defects vs. factual appeal)