Colorado Springs, CO
Mediation Lawyer at Colorado Springs, CO
Practice Areas: Mediation, Family ... +4 more
OUTCOME: The district courts judgment is vacated. The $7,000 judgment is reinstated. The case is remanded for the District Court to reconsider the Rule 60(b) motion and to consider request for attorney fees for the appeal.
Judgment Vacated, Order Reversed, and Case Remanded with Directions to Court to make additional factual findings.
OUTCOME: Won appeal. Order affirmed for child custody because endangerment was not proved when trying to flip-flop parenting time.
Upon a request for modification that changes the parent with whom the child resides a majority of the time the court must retain the parenting time schedule from the prior decree, unless...(4) it finds ... the child would be endangered. The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the statutory endangerment standard had not been met.
OUTCOME: The order was vacated. The case was remanded to the trial court to hold a hearing on this matter and to decide father's motion on its merits.
Father contends the trial court erred in concluding that his motion to modify parenting time was time barred. He argues that § 14-10-131 does not apply to motions for modification of parenting time. He ... also submits that § 14-10-129(1.5) does not apply to his motion because its two-year prohibition on motions for modification of parenting time applies only: (1) when a party's request would change the person who has a majority of parenting time; and (2) if a second motion to change parenting time is filed within two years after a previous one. The Court agreed that § 14-10-131(1) does not apply to a motion for modification of parenting time. The Court also agreed, absent a previous motion of the type described in § 14-10-129(1.5), that father's motion was not subject to the two-year rule set forth in that subsection. Thus, his motion should have been considered by the trial court.