Modification of Parenting Time.
In a post-dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court restricted parenting time of David Lyman (father) with his minor child. Father appealed the court’s ruling. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part.
The marriage between father and mother was dissolved in 2007. At that time, the parties signed a complete parenting plan that detailed a gradual increase in father’s parenting time over a period of seven months, from short supervised visits to unsupervised alternating weekend overnights with the child. The father’s visits were to be governed by ongoing urinalysis tests and drug screenings to demonstrate that he had not returned to marijuana use.
Approximately a week after signing the parenting plan and the same day it was incorporated by the court into the decree, father learned he had been approved for listing on the state of Colorado Medical Marijuana Registry (Registry) due to his debilitating back and knee pain from a motorcycle accident. He filed a pro se motion with the magistrate requesting that the urinalysis portion of the parenting plan be waived.
The magistrate concluded father’s voluntary signing of the parenting plan left him “stuck with it.” Father filed a timely petition for review but the trial court took no action. Five months later, mother filed a pro se motion to restrict father’s parenting time, arguing that he had not provided urinalysis drug screens and had asked the child to keep secrets about his drug use. No hearing was held on this motion.
More than a year after father filed his petition for review, and nearly nine months after mother filed her motion, the trial court denied father’s petition. The court modified the urinalysis provision somewhat, and required supervised parenting time until he demonstrated to the court by clear and convincing evidence that his use of medical marijuana is not detrimental to the child. Father appealed.
On appeal, father argued that the trial court erred in modifying the provision restricting him to supervised parenting time without a finding that, absent such a restriction, the child would have been physically endangered or her emotional development would have been significantly impaired. Additionally, father argued the record contained no evidence that would support such a finding. The Court agreed with both arguments and therefore vacated the modified provision.
Colorado Court of Appeals: In re the Marriage of Parr
About CBA-CLE Legal Connection
CBA CLE Legal Connection is published by Colorado Bar Association CLE (also known as CLE in Colorado, Inc.). It is focused on delivering timely resources, updates and continuing legal education to … [Read More...]
Featured Homestudy: Business Law Institute
Law Practice Tip of the Week
Solo Tip Tuesday: Keep Track of Requests You've Made of Others in a Folder Called @WFF
This could be my all-time favorite tip. We often use email to ask someone to send us something, or check on something and get back to us, etc. Sending the email is the easy part. The hard part is keeping track of what you asked for and when, and then remembering to follow up when the person doesn’t get back to you. Click here to read more.
Colorado Court of Appeals Kicks the Can as to Whether HPA Voids Limitations-of-Liability Clauses in Residential A/E Contracts Between Construction Professionals
Colorado’s Homeowner Protection Act (the “HPA”) protects homeowners by voiding any contractual provision that would result in the waiver of a homeowner’s rights under the Construction Defects Action Reform Act. C.R.S. § 13-20-806(7)(a). But some have argued that this same law should also void certain waivers and releases in agreements between construction professionals working on residential projects. Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals was faced with, but did not decide, this issue.
The Colorado State Judicial Branch continues to revise its JDF forms. In February and March 2014, forms were revised in the Adoption, Appeals, Domestic, Garnishment & Judgment, Probate, and Seal My Case categories, and the filing fees were also amended.
On Thursday, March 6, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and 37 unpublished opinions.