Marriage of Veach
24CA1078
Colo. Ct. App.May 22, 2025Background
- Jeremy Wade Veach (father) appealed a permanent protection order (PPO) that protected his two children from him, after his ex-wife, Skye Lynn Veach (mother), obtained the order based on allegations of physical assault and threats.
- The initiating incident included claims that father grabbed the oldest child by the neck and threw him to the ground, and a separate incident where he made the children run home in front of his truck at night as punishment for a poor performance at a wrestling meet.
- A temporary protection order (TPO) was first granted ex parte without a hearing; later, a hearing was held before the PPO was issued.
- The PPO restricted father to supervised parenting time with the children twice a week and temporarily gave the mother sole care and control.
- Father challenged the PPO on procedural and evidentiary grounds as well as on sufficiency of evidence for the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lack of TPO hearing before issuance | Father: Court did not hold required hearing, thus PPO is invalid. | Mother: Did not dispute lack of hearing; any error was harmless. | Any error harmless because full hearing was held for PPO. |
| District court's evidentiary rulings | Father: Improper exclusion/admission of evidence (witness on truthfulness, teacher's hearsay). | Mother: Exclusions proper; evidence was cumulative or properly admitted. | No abuse of discretion; any errors were harmless or evidence was cumulative. |
| Burden and sufficiency of evidence for PPO | Father: Burden shifted to him, insufficient evidence for PPO. | Mother: Court used correct standards, evidence supports findings. | Court applied correct standard, sufficient evidence supported PPO. |
| Standard applied and best interests | Father: Court confused protection order and best interest standards. | Mother: No confusion, statements related to future modifications. | Court correctly applied protection order statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lobato, 530 P.2d 493 (Colo. 1975) (definition and threshold for bodily injury under Colorado law)
- In re Marriage of Adamson, 626 P.2d 739 (Colo. App. 1981) (harmlessness of evidentiary error if testimony is cumulative)
- Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. DeWitt, 218 P.3d 318 (Colo. 2009) (timeliness and specificity required for evidentiary objections)
- In re Marriage of Nelson, 2012 COA 205 (Colo. App. 2012) (appellate courts do not substitute judgments for trial court on factual findings)