(1) Within thirty-five days after the filing of a verified motion by either parent or upon the court's own motion alleging that a parent is not complying with a parenting time order or schedule and setting forth the possible sanctions that may be imposed by the court, the court shall determine from the verified motion, and response to the motion, if any, whether there has been or is likely to be substantial or continuing noncompliance with the parenting time order or schedule and either:
(a) Deny the motion, if there is an inadequate allegation; or
(b) Set the matter for hearing with notice to the parents of the time and place of the hearing as expeditiously as possible; or
(c) Require the parties to seek mediation and report back to the court on the results of the mediation within sixty-three days. Mediation services shall be provided in accordance with section 13-22-305, C.R.S. At the end of the mediation period, the court may approve an agreement reached by the parents or shall set the matter for hearing.
(2) After the hearing, if a court finds that a parent has not complied with the parenting time order or schedule and has violated the court order, the court, in the best interests of the child, shall issue an order that may include but not be limited to one or more of the following orders:
(a) An order imposing additional terms and conditions that are consistent with the court's previous order; except that the court shall separate the issues of child support and parenting time and shall not condition child support upon parenting time;
(b) An order modifying the previous order to meet the best interests of the child; (b.3) An order requiring either parent or both parents to attend a parental education program as described in section 14-10-123.7, at the expense of the noncomplying parent; (b.7) An order requiring the parties to participate in family counseling pursuant to section 13-22-313, C.R.S., at the expense of the noncomplying parent;
(c) An order requiring the violator to post bond or security to insure future compliance;
(d) An order requiring that makeup parenting time be provided for the aggrieved parent or child under the following conditions:
(I) That such parenting time is of the same type and duration of parenting time as that which was denied, including but not limited to parenting time during weekends, on holidays, and on weekdays and during the summer;
(II) That such parenting time is made up within six months after the noncompliance occurs, unless the period of time or holiday can not be made up within six months in which case the parenting time shall be made up within one year after the noncompliance occurs;
(III) That such parenting time takes place at the time and in the manner chosen by the aggrieved parent if it is in the best interests of the child;
(e) An order finding the parent who did not comply with the parenting time schedule in contempt of court and imposing a fine or jail sentence; (e.5) An order imposing on the noncomplying parent a civil fine not to exceed one hundred dollars per incident of denied parenting time;
(f) An order scheduling a hearing for modification of the existing order concerning custody or the allocation of parental responsibilities with respect to a motion filed pursuant to section 14-10-131;
(g) (Deleted by amendment, L. 97, p. 970, § 1, effective August 6, 1997.)
(h) Any other order that may promote the best interests of the child or children involved.
(3) Any civil fines collected as a result of an order entered pursuant to paragraph (e.5) of subsection (2) of this section shall be transmitted to the state treasurer, who shall credit the same to the dispute resolution fund created in section 13-22-310, C.R.S.
(4) In addition to any other order entered pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, the court shall order a parent who has failed to provide court-ordered parenting time or to exercise court-ordered parenting time to pay to the aggrieved party attorney fees or licensed legal paraprofessional fees, court costs, and expenses that are associated with an action brought pursuant to this section. In the event the parent responding to an action brought pursuant to this section is found not to be in violation of the parenting time order or schedule, the court may order the petitioning parent to pay the court costs, attorney fees or licensed legal paraprofessional fees, and expenses incurred by the responding parent. This section does not preclude a party's right to a separate and independent legal action in tort.
Source: L. 87: Entire section added, p. 578, § 1, effective July 1. L. 93: IP(1) and (2) amended, p. 579, § 12, effective July 1. L. 97: Entire section amended, p. 970, § 1, effective August 6. L. 98: IP(2) and (2)(f) amended, p. 1388, § 16, effective February 1, 1999. L. 2012: IP(1) and (1)(c) amended, (SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 833, § 34, effective July 1. L. 2024: (4) amended, (HB 24-1291), ch. 131, p. 473, § 23, effective August 7.
Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 1993 act amending the introductory portion to subsection (1) and subsection (2), see section 1 of chapter 165, Session Laws of Colorado 1993.
Notes of Decisions
In re the Marriage of Dean & Cook, 2017 COA 51 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 11× “¶ 36 This case presents an important issue of first impression: what must a custodial parent do to ensure that her teenaged children visit with their non-custodial parent, as prescribed by a parenting time order? ¶ 37 We all agree that the custodial parent may not do anything,…”
Responsibilities of W.F-L, 2018 COA 164 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 26× “Accordingly, the district court could consider the applicability of the remedies set forth in section 14-10-129.5, C.R.S. 2018, including modifying an existing parenting time order, requiring make-up parenting time for an aggrieved parent, or requiring the noncomplying parent to…”
In Re the Marriage of Herrera, 772 P.2d 676 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 20× “Further, pursuant to § 14-10-129.5, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B), the court imposed remedial sanctions, including makeup visitation and requiring the mother to post a $500 bond.”
Wedgle & Shpall, P.C. v. Ray (In Re Ray), 143 B.R. 937 (D. Colo. 1992).
· cites it 11× “On March 11, 1991, the court entered a further order, clarifying that fees were imposed primarily under Colo.Rev.Stat. § 14-10-129.5 and, to a lesser extent, Colo.”
In Re the Marriage of Slowinski, 199 P.3d 48 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 7× “October 11, 2005 Sanctions Order Father contends that the trial court erred in imposing sanctions against him under section 14-10-129.5, C.R.S.2007, in its order of October 11, 2005.”
In Re the Marriage of Elmer, 936 P.2d 617 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “In 1994, the husband filed motions for joint custody and to enforce visitation under § 14-10-129.5, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B).”
Carter v. Carter, 470 S.E.2d 193 (W. Va. 1996).
· cites it 2× “060 (1992); Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 14-10-129.5 (West 1987); 750 ILCS 5/607.”
In Re the Marriage of Hoffman, 878 P.2d 103 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 8× “He asked the court to impose sanctions as provided in § 14-10-129.5, C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 6B) and requested an order restraining the mother from moving out of the state without court approval, but did not request that child support be abated.”
Marshall v. Marshall, 183 P.3d 699 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 33× “He argues that the court overlooked section 14-10-129.5(4), C.R.S.2007, which allows a party to bring an independent tort action for damages sustained in a dispute over parenting time.”
In the Interest of C.T.G., 179 P.3d 213 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Stepfather filed a motion to enforce parenting time pursuant to § 14-10-129.5, C.R.S.2006 (addressing disputes concerning parenting time).”
In re the Marriage of Williams-Off, 867 P.2d 205 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 9× “According to § 14-10-129.5, C.R.S. (1987 RepLVol. 6B), upon a verified motion by either parent alleging that a parent is not complying with a visitation order or schedule, the court “shall” determine from the verified motion and response, if any, whether there has been or is…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129.5(1) — 8 cases
In Re the Marriage of Slowinski, 199 P.3d 48 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“October 11, 2005 Sanctions Order Father contends that the trial court erred in imposing sanctions against him under section 14-10-129.5, C.R.S.2007, in its order of October 11, 2005.”
Responsibilities of W.F-L, 2018 COA 164 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
“Accordingly, the district court could consider the applicability of the remedies set forth in section 14-10-129.5, C.R.S. 2018, including modifying an existing parenting time order, requiring make-up parenting time for an aggrieved parent, or requiring the noncomplying parent to…”
In Re the Marriage of Herrera, 772 P.2d 676 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
“Further, pursuant to § 14-10-129.5, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B), the court imposed remedial sanctions, including makeup visitation and requiring the mother to post a $500 bond.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129.5(2) — 4 cases
In re the Marriage of Dean & Cook, 2017 COA 51 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).
“¶ 36 This case presents an important issue of first impression: what must a custodial parent do to ensure that her teenaged children visit with their non-custodial parent, as prescribed by a parenting time order? ¶ 37 We all agree that the custodial parent may not do anything,…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129.5(2)(b) — 8 cases
In re the Marriage of Dean & Cook, 2017 COA 51 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).
“¶ 36 This case presents an important issue of first impression: what must a custodial parent do to ensure that her teenaged children visit with their non-custodial parent, as prescribed by a parenting time order? ¶ 37 We all agree that the custodial parent may not do anything,…”
Wedgle & Shpall, P.C. v. Ray (In Re Ray), 143 B.R. 937 (D. Colo. 1992).
“On March 11, 1991, the court entered a further order, clarifying that fees were imposed primarily under Colo.Rev.Stat. § 14-10-129.5 and, to a lesser extent, Colo.”
In Re the Marriage of Hoffman, 878 P.2d 103 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
“He asked the court to impose sanctions as provided in § 14-10-129.5, C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 6B) and requested an order restraining the mother from moving out of the state without court approval, but did not request that child support be abated.”
Responsibilities of W.F-L, 2018 COA 164 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
“Accordingly, the district court could consider the applicability of the remedies set forth in section 14-10-129.5, C.R.S. 2018, including modifying an existing parenting time order, requiring make-up parenting time for an aggrieved parent, or requiring the noncomplying parent to…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129.5(2)(c) — 2 cases
In re the Marriage of Dean & Cook, 2017 COA 51 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).
“¶ 36 This case presents an important issue of first impression: what must a custodial parent do to ensure that her teenaged children visit with their non-custodial parent, as prescribed by a parenting time order? ¶ 37 We all agree that the custodial parent may not do anything,…”
In Re the Marriage of Herrera, 772 P.2d 676 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
“Further, pursuant to § 14-10-129.5, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B), the court imposed remedial sanctions, including makeup visitation and requiring the mother to post a $500 bond.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129.5(2)(d) — 4 cases
In re the Marriage of Dean & Cook, 2017 COA 51 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).
“¶ 36 This case presents an important issue of first impression: what must a custodial parent do to ensure that her teenaged children visit with their non-custodial parent, as prescribed by a parenting time order? ¶ 37 We all agree that the custodial parent may not do anything,…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129.5(2)(d)(I) — 2 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129.5(2)(d)(II) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129.5(2)(e) — 2 cases
In re the Marriage of Dean & Cook, 2017 COA 51 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).
“¶ 36 This case presents an important issue of first impression: what must a custodial parent do to ensure that her teenaged children visit with their non-custodial parent, as prescribed by a parenting time order? ¶ 37 We all agree that the custodial parent may not do anything,…”
In Re the Marriage of Herrera, 772 P.2d 676 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
“Further, pursuant to § 14-10-129.5, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B), the court imposed remedial sanctions, including makeup visitation and requiring the mother to post a $500 bond.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129.5(2)(f) — 2 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129.5(2)(g) — 3 cases
In Re the Marriage of Herrera, 772 P.2d 676 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
“Further, pursuant to § 14-10-129.5, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B), the court imposed remedial sanctions, including makeup visitation and requiring the mother to post a $500 bond.”
Wedgle & Shpall, P.C. v. Ray (In Re Ray), 143 B.R. 937 (D. Colo. 1992).
“On March 11, 1991, the court entered a further order, clarifying that fees were imposed primarily under Colo.Rev.Stat. § 14-10-129.5 and, to a lesser extent, Colo.”
In Re the Marriage of Hoffman, 878 P.2d 103 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
“He asked the court to impose sanctions as provided in § 14-10-129.5, C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 6B) and requested an order restraining the mother from moving out of the state without court approval, but did not request that child support be abated.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129.5(2)(h) — 3 cases
In re the Marriage of Dean & Cook, 2017 COA 51 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).
“¶ 36 This case presents an important issue of first impression: what must a custodial parent do to ensure that her teenaged children visit with their non-custodial parent, as prescribed by a parenting time order? ¶ 37 We all agree that the custodial parent may not do anything,…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129.5(4) — 5 cases
Marshall v. Marshall, 183 P.3d 699 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“He argues that the court overlooked section 14-10-129.5(4), C.R.S.2007, which allows a party to bring an independent tort action for damages sustained in a dispute over parenting time.”
Responsibilities of W.F-L, 2018 COA 164 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
“Accordingly, the district court could consider the applicability of the remedies set forth in section 14-10-129.5, C.R.S. 2018, including modifying an existing parenting time order, requiring make-up parenting time for an aggrieved parent, or requiring the noncomplying parent to…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129.5(d)(II) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.