Colorado law requires the court to make parenting decisions based on the best interest of the child. A parent has a constitutional right to reasonable parenting time with a child unless the court is shown clear and convincing evidence that unrestricted parenting time would pose a physical danger to the child or would substantially impair his / her longtime emotionally or psychologically.

It is important to note that reasonable parenting time does not mean equal parenting time. There is no set age in Colorado law where a child has a right to decide which parent he / she wishes to live with most of the time. However, the wishes of the child are one factor in this decision. The weight a child’s wishes may count depends on the particular judge making the decision.

Often the older a teen is, the more weight a judge will place on his or her wishes. Exceptions may lie in circumstances where one parents lax requirements or discipline may not be in the child’s best interest [such as no curfew, no expectation of homework, permissive attitudes towards alcohol/drug use by the teen, etc]. Also, a judge may feel that a teen’s judgment or wishes is clouded by the influence of the other parent [the term ‘alienation’ is often used for this type of influence].

A judge will usually refuse to have a child of any age, even a teen, testify in court. Most judges also refuse to speak to a teen in their private chambers (or office). This is not because no one cares how a child or teen feels about the situation. It is because most judges feel that the professionals they appoint as Child Family Investigators or Parental Responsibilities Evaluators are better qualified to speak to minors sensitively about their preferences, and that these conversations are better conducted away from the court house.

There are many reasons people legitimately resist or oppose having temporary protection orders made permanent. A temporary protection order is issued by a judge based on the statement of one side, before the other side has the chance to tell their version of the situation.

Having a protection order become permanent may impact rights to own or possess firearms. It is also possible that, in the days of the internet, the existence of a civil protection case may be easily discovered by a prospective employer and limit job opportunities.

A permanent protection order may be amended after two years but the procedure to do so is quite complicated and uncertain.

The two most obvious reasons to resist a protection order are (1) The events stated in the complaint simply are not true or (2) even if certain behavior did occur, it did not rise to the level of violence or threats required by law to constitute domestic violence.

There are other options on the first hearing after a temporary protection order is issued. Both sides may agree to continue it as a temporary order for some extended period of time. It is not uncommon, for example, for a temporary order to be issued at the start of a divorce case but to have the terms relaxed or the entire order ended at a later date.

This is a very difficult question because there are many categories of “abusive” behavior, which may not meet the standard of domestic violence for purposes of a restraining order or impacting parenting decisions by a judge.

For example, it is rare that purely verbal behavior will rise to the legal standard of domestic violence unless acts of violence or revenge are involved. However, a number of actions, which may not appear to be domestic violence at first impression, may be factors or evidence of domestic violence to a judge. Some examples: (1) Repeated phone calls may be considered harassment for purposes of both criminal charges and a protection order. (2) It is unlawful to take someone’s car keys to prevent them from leaving a home or to block a doorway to prevent them from leaving a room they wish to leave. (3) Breaking someone’s property in anger, harming a family pet or a number of other similar behaviors may constitute domestic violence.

The wisest choice for someone who thinks he or she may be a victim of domestic violence is to consult a community advocacy organization or to contact a lawyer with specific knowledge in this area.

Impact on Parenting cases

One of the most difficult decisions facing judges is the extent to which a parent’s drug or alcohol use impacts that parent’s ability to provide a safe and loving environment for children. Accordingly, there is no easy answer to this question.

The usual starting point for most judges is the basic issue of safety. Is a parent driving a child while under the influence of alcohol or mood altering drugs [even if a drug is prescribed]? The age of the child is a factor in deciding whether drug use threatens child safety. For example, most fifteen year olds know how to get out of a burning home, whereas that cannot be said for a 2 year old.

Generally a parent’s use of drugs or alcohol away from children is not a significant factor. Also parents are usually afforded some leeway in the consumption of legal drugs such as alcohol, and more recently marijuana, in Colorado. Recent case law implies that a judge must make specific findings regarding how a parent’s drug use negatively impacts a child before the court can forbid a parent to use drugs or alcohol. However, regular use of many illegal street drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine or heroin will almost certainly be seen as a serious drug problem. Also regular intoxication or regular use of any drug to the point that it interferes with a parents functioning may be a significant factor in deciding how much time a child should spend with a parent.

It is not uncommon for courts to restrict parent’s access to children to a supervised setting when the judge is convinced that the use of drugs or alcohol has become harmful to a child.

Impact on maintenance/alimony/child support

Colorado law is based on the “no-fault” standard. For example, the Colorado court of appeals has ruled that a parent’s child support may be reduced, even when a parent loses his or her job due to a failed drug test.

The rationale is that the court must ascertain the earning potential of a party at the time they come before the court. The “no-fault” doctrine prohibits a judge from punishing parties, even for illegal drug use that costs a job. However, a judge may reasonably expect someone with a child support or maintenance [alimony] obligation to make their best efforts to obtain or maintain employment, and could find that a party’s refusal to seek drug treatment in order to maintain employment is a voluntary choice.

Also in the division of marital property, a court might decide that one spouse’s expenditure of extravagant sums on illegal substances or alcohol might be a factor in dividing marital property under the doctrine of “marital waste”.

Traditionally, the answer to this question has been yes. The obligation to pay maintenance has not terminated in Colorado just because either the payer or recipient is in a new relationship. This is confusing to people because maintenance does automatically end if the recipient remarries [although a remarriage by the payer does not limit the obligation to pay maintenance].

There are circumstances in which the recipient of maintenance is supported by a new “significant other” to the extent that this might end their need for maintenance. For anyone contemplating moving in with a significant other while receiving maintenance or whether to file a motion to termination maintenance, the advice of an experienced lawyer is invaluable.

Colorado law recognizes the doctrine of common law marriage between a man and a woman [there is no such thing as same-sex common law marriage in Colorado law].

There are many misconceptions about what does or does not make a common law marriage. The most important factors in whether a common law marriage has been created are (1) whether the parties intended to be married and (2) whether they have lived together. Other factors are really just ways of proving whether the parties did or did not consider themselves to be married. Examples of behavior which might show this intention to be married include filing joint tax returns, owning property together, joint bank accounts, wearing wedding rings, etc. The decision is usually based on a combination of one or more of these or other factors.

A common law marriage is simply an alternative route to getting married instead of obtaining a civil marriage license. There is no such thing as common law divorce. If a common law marriage has been formed, the only way to obtain a divorce is to file for dissolution of marriage through the court system.

If you have created a common law marriage, there can be enormous future consequences which may not be clear at the time of separation. The existence of a common law marriage may impact the ability to inherit property or receive life insurance proceeds; as well as other financial obligations such as maintenance and division of marital property. For these reasons, if there is any doubt as to whether one has entered a common law marriage, it is very wise to consult with a lawyer at the time a relationship ends. A mistake in assuming there is no common law marriage can have devastating lifelong consequences.

My first answer is non-legal. Discussion of a prenuptial agreement raises difficult financial questions. These difficult financial questions inevitably come up between spouses in any marriage. If it is too uncomfortable to discuss these issues prior to a marriage, imagine how much more difficult it will be years into a marriage or, more tragically, at the time of a divorce.

From a legal perspective, prenuptial agreements quickly resolve conflicts that otherwise may drive up large legal bills and create hostility and conflict between divorcing parties. One example is the value of a business, which can easily cost $5,000—$10,000 in expert consultation fees to appraise during the divorce process. Other examples would be issues involving maintenance [alimony] as well as what is or is not considered separate property.

In the absence of a prenuptial agreement, the court will decide the obligations each spouse owes to the other as a consequence of their marriage. Many people prefer to make this decision between themselves.

However, because children have their own individual needs and rights after divorce, there is very little that somebody can put into a prenuptial agreement that will affect issues such as custody or child support.

Usually retirement accounts are treated as a martial asset or property, and divided at the time of a divorce. There are some circumstances where a retiree might have to pay maintenance, however, depending upon a number of circumstances.

The law generally does respect people’s right to retire and no one is expected to continue working after the normal age of social security retirement solely to earn money to pay maintenance.

As of January 2014, Colorado has a new law providing guidelines to judges in awarding maintenance (often know in other states as alimony).

This law provides guidance to judges in awarding maintenance from a higher earning spouse to a lower earning spouse lasting from a third to half the length of the marriage. The basic formula loosely provides for taking 40% of the higher earning spouse and subtracting 50% of the lower earning spouse, which results in the basic monthly maintenance awarded. While many people feel this will simplify maintenance cases, substantial questions remain. Most importantly—what is the potential earning capacity of the spouse seeking maintenance? These decisions are made based on potential income as well as actual income.

Like most areas of divorce law, this statute provides judges with a broad guideline but leaves each judge the freedom and discretion to make different decisions based upon unique circumstances. However, a lower earning spouse will often receive maintenance from the higher earning spouse in a marriage of several years or more.

Often websites are out of date. The law changes is constantly changing both year by year as the Colorado state legislature passes new laws as well as month by month as the Colorado Courts of Appeals and the Colorado Supreme Court issue new opinions interpreting the law.

While the forms on the Colorado court website are very helpful and informative, they may also be quite limited. They do not address every issue that can be presented to a court and they give very limited options to parents who are looking for a detailed parenting plan or separation agreement. They also do not explain legal consequences of how the forms are filled out. State forms do not explain the differences between taxable and non-taxable maintenance, modifiable or non-modifiable maintenance, etc. It is not unusual for people to be completely unaware of legal consequences of the forms they have filled out, to their later dismay.

Perhaps more importantly, once the details of the law are clear, lawyers are able to help determine how a judge is likely to apply the law. For example, I am often asked whether there is some certain age that children get to determine which parent they live with. Not only is there no such age, every judge has his or her own opinion as to how much a teenager is entitled to be a part of this decision. Thus, a working knowledge of how judges make their decisions in real life situations is important in predicting the outcome any person’s real individual circumstance. Experience is indispensable to the ability to predict the outcome of a case. Lawyers have awareness of questions to ask which may never have occurred to many clients, and fully explain the consequences which may flow from which boxes are checked, etc.

Ultimately, information on the Internet is based on average circumstances; however, few people’s lives are truly average.