clear and convincing standard in Colorado

2015A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625, 631 (Colo. 1982) (holding that the clear and convincing standard must apply in terminating the parent-child relationship after the children have been adjudicated dependent or neglected).

2015A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625, 631 (Colo.1982) (holding that the clear and convincing standard must apply 'in terminating the parent-child relationship after the children have been adjudicated dependent or neglected).

2011See In re A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625, 641 (Colo.1982); L.L. v. People, 10 P.3d at 1276 (reasoning that the greater the deprivation, the greater the procedural protection provided to parents).

2011See In re A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625, 641 (Colo.1982); L.L. v. People, 10 P.3d at 1276 (reasoning that the greater the deprivation, the greater the procedural protection provided to parents).

2010But because the presumption that arises in favor of a fit parent's decision concerning grandparent visitation is constitutionally mandated, see C.A., 137 P.3d at 322, 327 , as is the clear and convincing standard, id., it is nevertheless appropriate to place the burden of rebutting the presumption by clear and convincing evidence upon grandparents.

2010But because the presumption that arises in favor of a fit parent's decision concerning grandparent visitation is constitutionally mandated, see C.A., 137 P.3d at 322, 327 , as is the clear and convincing standard, id., it is nevertheless appropriate to place the burden of rebutting the presumption by clear and convincing evidence upon grandparents.

2011See In re Parental Responsibilities of B.J., 242 P.8d 1128, 1188-85 (Colo.2010) (when a nonparent seeks primary care of a child, the presumption that the parent has the first and prior right to primary care may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence); In re Parental Responsibilities of Reese, 227 P.3d 900, 908 (Colo.App.2010)(when nonparent seeks allocation of parental responsibilities against parent's wishes, parent's liberty interest in child not infringed "when the parent's determination regarding the best interests of the child is overcome by clear and convincing proof of releva

2010See In re Parental Responsibilities of Reese, 227 P.3d 900, 901 (Colo.App.2010) (concluding that the parental presumption that applied to mother as a fit parent could be rebutted only by findings based on clear and convincing evidence that the grant of decision-making responsibility and parenting time to third-party petitioners was in the child's best interests).

1990In Gerner , an adverse possession case, the court noted that subsequent to the enactment of § 13-25-127(1), it had decided Raftopoulos v. Monger, 656 P.2d 1308 (Colo.1983), in which it followed the clear and convincing standard, and it concluded that case had been wrongly decided as to the burden of proof question and specifically overruled it on that issue.

1989See Raftopoulos v. Monger, 656 P.2d 1308 (Colo.1983).

2025E:03 (2021). ¶ 36 Griego’s contention overlooks that the court’s instruction defined the burden of proof as “more than proof that something is highly probable, but it does not require proof with absolute certainty.” (Emphasis added.) Because the instruction required more than the clear-and-convincing standard of being highly probable used in civil cases, see People v. Taylor, 618 P.2d 1127, 1136 (Colo. 1980), the level of certainty required by the “firmly convinced” language did not lower the prosecution’s burden of proof below that of beyond a reasonable doubt, see Schlehuber, ¶ 31 (holding t

1988Proof by “clear and convincing evidence” is proof which persuades the trier of fact that the truth of the contention is “highly probable.” It is evidence which is stronger than a “preponderance of the evidence.” People v. Taylor, 618 P.2d 1127, 1136 (Colo.1980). 3 “The clear and convincing standard thus minimizes the risk of error.

2013Similarly in Page, 197 Colo. at 317 n. 3, 592 P.2d at 799 n. 3, the supreme court noted that the burden of proof in actions in equity had been cited as "clear, strong, satisfactory, and convineing" (citing and abrogating Tourtelotte v. Brown, 4 Colo.App. 377 , 36 P. 73 (1894)), and similar formulations, all of which were tantamount to a clear and convincing standard. 483 Thus, the marital presumption as it had been applied in Balanson and earlier cases implicitly relied on the above-cited resulting and constructive trust cases which set forth a standard of proof equivalent to clear and convinc

2013Similarly in Page, 197 Colo. at 317 n. 3, 592 P.2d at 799 n. 3, the supreme court noted that the burden of proof in actions in equity had been cited as "clear, strong, satisfactory, and convineing" (citing and abrogating Tourtelotte v. Brown, 4 Colo.App. 377 , 36 P. 73 (1894)), and similar formulations, all of which were tantamount to a clear and convincing standard. 483 Thus, the marital presumption as it had been applied in Balanson and earlier cases implicitly relied on the above-cited resulting and constructive trust cases which set forth a standard of proof equivalent to clear and convinc

2012See People in Interest of S.M.A.M.A., 172 P.3d 958, 962 (Colo.App.2007). " 49 Based on this record, we conclude that the GAL and the Department, which supported the termination motion, met the clear and convincing standard and proved that mother did not substantially or successfully comply with most aspects of the treatment plan.

2012See People in Interest of S.M.A.M.A., 172 P.3d 958, 962 (Colo.App. 2007). ¶ 49 Based on this record, we conclude that the GAL and the Department, which supported the termination motion, met the clear and convincing standard and proved that mother did not substantially or successfully comply with most aspects of the treatment plan.

2004In re A.W., 637 *597 P.2d 366 (Colo.1981); see Cruzan v. Director, 497 U.S. 261 , 110 S.Ct. 2841 , 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990)(upholding state requirement of clear and convincing evidence to discontinue life sustaining procedures for person in persistent vegetative state).

2004In re A.W., 637 *597 P.2d 366 (Colo.1981); see Cruzan v. Director, 497 U.S. 261 , 110 S.Ct. 2841 , 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990)(upholding state requirement of clear and convincing evidence to discontinue life sustaining procedures for person in persistent vegetative state).

2019See A.M. v. A.C., 2013 CO 16, ¶¶ 28-29 ; D.P.H., 260 P.3d at 323 ; E.R.S. v. O.D.A., 779 P.2d 844, 847-48 (Colo. 1989); In re R.H.N., 710 P.2d 482, 486 (Colo. 1985). 16 V.

2011See In re Parental Responsibilities of B.J., 242 P.8d 1128, 1188-85 (Colo.2010) (when a nonparent seeks primary care of a child, the presumption that the parent has the first and prior right to primary care may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence); In re Parental Responsibilities of Reese, 227 P.3d 900, 908 (Colo.App.2010)(when nonparent seeks allocation of parental responsibilities against parent's wishes, parent's liberty interest in child not infringed "when the parent's determination regarding the best interests of the child is overcome by clear and convincing proof of releva

2003Id.

2003See id.

2025See People in Interest of C.Z., 2015 COA 87, ¶ 7 ; L.S., ¶¶ 34-35 (noting that the clear and convincing standard applies only at the termination hearing, not the dispositional hearing). ¶ 10 Whether a juvenile court properly terminated parental rights presents a mixed question of law and fact because it involves the application of the termination statute to evidentiary facts.

2023Such a high bar indicates that an expedited hearing absent any discovery procedures and with a preponderance of the evidence standard is not the appropriate means for adjudicating a matter of this magnitude.5 See Frazier, ¶¶ 17–18, 401 P.3d at 545 (holding that “inconsistencies” between the procedures of section 1-1-113 and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “reinforce” the conclusion that not all federal law claims can be raised in section 1-1-113 proceedings). 5 Although the district court made its findings using the clear and convincing standard, the election code calls for a preponderance stan

2022McCormick, The Law of Evidence § 339 (2nd ed. 1972)) — the clear and convincing standard requires proof that a fact is “highly probable and free from serious or substantial doubt.” Destination Maternity v. Burren, 2020 CO 41, ¶ 10 (citation omitted). ¶ 37 A communication is made with actual malice if it is published with “actual knowledge that it was false” or “with reckless disregard for whether it was true.” L.S.S., ¶ 40.

2019See A.M. v. A.C., 2013 CO 16, ¶¶ 28-29 ; D.P.H., 260 P.3d at 323 ; E.R.S. v. O.D.A., 779 P.2d 844, 847-48 (Colo. 1989); In re R.H.N., 710 P.2d 482, 486 (Colo. 1985). 16 V.

2019See Brecht v. Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619 , 631, 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (noting that because the Court had "never squarely addressed" a certain issue and had at most assumed the applicability of the pertinent standard, it was "free to address the issue on the merits"); Edelman v. Jordan , 415 U.S. 651 , 671, 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) (noting that the Court's "summary affirmances" of lower court decisions "are not of the same precedential value as would be an opinion of this Court treating the question on the merits"); see also People v. Delage , 2018 CO 45 , ¶ 10, 41

2019See Brecht v. Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619 , 631, 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (noting that because the Court had "never squarely addressed" a certain issue and had at most assumed the applicability of the pertinent standard, it was "free to address the issue on the merits"); Edelman v. Jordan , 415 U.S. 651 , 671, 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) (noting that the Court's "summary affirmances" of lower court decisions "are not of the same precedential value as would be an opinion of this Court treating the question on the merits"); see also People v. Delage , 2018 CO 45 , ¶ 10, 41

2019See Brecht v. Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619 , 631, 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (noting that because the Court had "never squarely addressed" a certain issue and had at most assumed the applicability of the pertinent standard, it was "free to address the issue on the merits"); Edelman v. Jordan , 415 U.S. 651 , 671, 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) (noting that the Court's "summary affirmances" of lower court decisions "are not of the same precedential value as would be an opinion of this Court treating the question on the merits"); see also People v. Delage , 2018 CO 45 , ¶ 10, 41

2019See Brecht v. Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619 , 631, 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (noting that because the Court had "never squarely addressed" a certain issue and had at most assumed the applicability of the pertinent standard, it was "free to address the issue on the merits"); Edelman v. Jordan , 415 U.S. 651 , 671, 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) (noting that the Court's "summary affirmances" of lower court decisions "are not of the same precedential value as would be an opinion of this Court treating the question on the merits"); see also People v. Delage , 2018 CO 45 , ¶ 10, 41

2019See A.M. v. A.C., 2013 CO 16, ¶¶ 28-29 ; D.P.H., 260 P.3d at 323 ; E.R.S. v. O.D.A., 779 P.2d 844, 847-48 (Colo. 1989); In re R.H.N., 710 P.2d 482, 486 (Colo. 1985). 16 V.

2013However, neither the Balanson nor the Bartolo court explained the derivation of the clear and convincing standard applied to overcome the marital presumption. 139 The Balanson court also discussed In re Marriage of Stumpf, 932 P.2d 845, 848 (Colo.App.1996), and In re Marriage of Moncrief, 36 Colo.App. 140 , 141, 535 P.2d 1137, 1138 (1975), regarding the marital presumption.

2013However, neither the Stumpf nor the Moncrief division discussed the clear and convincing standard to overcome the marital presumption. {40 The Moncrief division cited In re Marriage of Altman, 35 Colo.App. 183, 185 , 530 P.2d 1012, 1013 (1974), for the proposition that under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act, when one spouse causes title to be placed jointly with the other spouse, a gift is presumed and the burden to show otherwise is upon the donor.

2013However, neither the Stumpf nor the Moncrief division discussed the clear and convincing standard to overcome the marital presumption. {40 The Moncrief division cited In re Marriage of Altman, 35 Colo.App. 183, 185 , 530 P.2d 1012, 1013 (1974), for the proposition that under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act, when one spouse causes title to be placed jointly with the other spouse, a gift is presumed and the burden to show otherwise is upon the donor.

2013However, neither the Balanson nor the Bartolo court explained the derivation of the clear and convincing standard applied to overcome the marital presumption. 139 The Balanson court also discussed In re Marriage of Stumpf, 932 P.2d 845, 848 (Colo.App.1996), and In re Marriage of Moncrief, 36 Colo.App. 140 , 141, 535 P.2d 1137, 1138 (1975), regarding the marital presumption.