Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Marriage of Garstgreen2 sentences2024See In re Marriage of Garst, 955 P.2d 1056, 1059 (Colo. App. 1998) (noting that, while the court could have made more specific findings, the findings made and reference to the parenting evaluation “demonstrate that the trial court considered” the appropriate best interests factors). 9 ¶ 23 The court began by citing the correct statutory standard for endangerment, along with the statutory best interests factors. 2024See In re Marriage of Garst, 955 P.2d 1056, 1059 (Colo. App. 1998) (noting that, while the court could have made more specific findings, the findings made and reference to the parenting evaluation “demonstrate that the trial court considered” the appropriate best interests factors). 9 ¶ 23 The court began by citing the correct statutory standard for endangerment, along with the statutory best interests factors. | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Marriage of Barkergreen2 sentences2016See § 14-10123.4(1)(a), C.R.S. 2015 (children have the right to have parental responsibilities determined based on their best interests); § 14-10124(1.5), C.R.S. 2015 (requiring a court to allocate parental responsibilities in accordance with a child’s best interests, giving paramount consideration to the child’s safety and physical, mental, and emotional conditions and needs); see also Barker , 251 P.3d at 592 . ¶27 As the district court noted in its order, and the record confirms, the arbitrator conducted a hearing, applied the statutory best interests factors relative to parenting time, a 2016See § 14-10123.4(1)(a), C.R.S. 2015 (children have the right to have parental responsibilities determined based on their best interests); § 14-10124(1.5), C.R.S. 2015 (requiring a court to allocate parental responsibilities in accordance with a child’s best interests, giving paramount consideration to the child’s safety and physical, mental, and emotional conditions and needs); see also Barker , 251 P.3d at 592 . ¶27 As the district court noted in its order, and the record confirms, the arbitrator conducted a hearing, applied the statutory best interests factors relative to parenting time, a | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Marriage of Cieslukgreen1 sentence2025We are not persuaded. ¶9 When the parent with whom the children primarily reside intends to relocate to a residence that substantially changes the 3 geographical ties between the children and the other parent, the court must determine, based on the statutory best interests factors and relocation factors, whether it is in the children’s best interests to relocate with the requesting parent. § 14-10-124(1.5)(a), C.R.S. 2024; § 14-10-129(2)(c), C.R.S. 2024; see also In re Marriage of Ciesluk, 113 P.3d 135, 140 (Colo. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of DeZalia v. DeZaliagreen1 sentence2025See In re Marriage of DeZalia, 151 P.3d 647, 650 (Colo. App. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Marriage of Nelsongreen1 sentence2024See In re Marriage of Nelson, 2012 COA 205, ¶ 35 (“[Even where] there is evidence in the record that could have supported a different conclusion, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the district court.”). ¶ 20 Nor are we persuaded by grandmother’s argument that the district court failed to consider the statutory best interests factors under section 14-10-124(1.5). | 1 | 1 |
People Ex Rel. Amkgreen1 sentence2024In assessing the best interests factors, “[t]he trial court need not make specific findings on each and every factor listed in the statute so long as there is some indication in the record that the pertinent factors were considered.” See People in Interest of A.M.K., 68 P.3d 563, 566 (Colo. App. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Adoption of Ca
green
1 sentence2024Id. ¶ 11 Section 14-10-124.4 represents the codification of In re Adoption of C.A., 137 P.3d 318 (Colo. 2006). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.