People ex rel. C.L.S.
2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 1942
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- S.V. (mother) and T.V. (husband) conceived C.L.S. during their marriage; S.V. also had a relationship with T.R.S. (boyfriend).
- Mother filed for dissolution in 2006; separation and dissolution decrees did not reference a child.
- At birth, the birth certificate listed no father; genetic testing later showed T.V. as biological father with 99.99% probability.
- Boyfriend signed an acknowledgment of paternity and was listed on the birth certificate despite genetic exclusion.
- Enforcement actions led to a case to determine the child’s legal father, naming both husband and boyfriend; the magistrate found competing presumptions of paternity and declared the boyfriend the legal father based on weightier considerations of policy and logic.
- District court affirmed the magistrate’s decision applying a preponderance standard; on appeal, husband argues for clear and convincing standard and proper articulation of burden of proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What burden of proof resolves competing presumptions? | Husband argues for clear and convincing standard. | Boyfriend argues for district court interpretation or no clear standard. | Preponderance standard governs weighing presumptions. |
| Did the magistrate properly weigh weightier considerations of policy and logic? | Weightier factors favor biological father. | Weightier factors favor the nonbiological presumption. | Weightier considerations are weighed under preponderance standard. |
| Is best interests of the child required to guide the weightier considerations? | Best interests should drive the analysis. | Best interests may be one factor among many. | Best interests must be considered; not sole determinant. |
Key Cases Cited
- N.A.H. v. S.L.S., 9 P.3d 354 (Colo. 2000) (establishes weightier considerations of policy and logic must include child's best interests)
- McCoy v. People, 165 Colo. 407 (Colo. 1968) (civil burden of proof guidance in paternity cases)
- In re Parental Responsibilities of B.J., 242 P.3d 1128 (Colo. 2010) (fundamental liberty interests require clear and convincing standard in certain parental determinations)
- N.A.H. v. S.L.S. (duplicate for emphasis), 9 P.3d 360 (Colo. 2000) (none of the presumptions is conclusive; best interests guide weighing)