(1) If a motion for modification of a custody decree or a decree allocating decision-making responsibility has been filed, whether or not it was granted, no subsequent motion may be filed within two years after disposition of the prior motion unless the court decides, on the basis of affidavits, that there is reason to believe that a continuation of the prior decree of custody or order allocating decision-making responsibility may endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development.
(2) The court shall not modify a custody decree or a decree allocating decision-making responsibility unless it finds, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or the child's custodian or party to whom decision-making responsibility was allocated and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. The trial court retains jurisdiction to modify an order allocating decision-making responsibility pursuant to this section during the pendency of an appeal. In applying these standards, the court shall retain the allocation of decision-making responsibility established by the prior decree unless:
(a) The parties agree to the modification;
(b) The child has been integrated into the family of the petitioner with the consent of the other party and such situation warrants a modification of the allocation of decision-making responsibilities; (b.5) There has been a modification in the parenting time order pursuant to section 14- 10-129, that warrants a modification of the allocation of decision-making responsibilities; (b.7) A party has consistently consented to the other party making individual decisions for the child which decisions the party was to make individually or the parties were to make mutually; or
(c) The retention of the allocation of decision-making responsibility would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impairs the child's emotional development and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change to the child.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 532, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 46-1-31. L. 83: (1) and IP(2) amended, p. 648, § 5, effective June 10. L. 98: Entire section amended, p. 1389, § 18, effective February 1, 1999. L. 2021: IP(2) amended, (HB 21-1031), ch. 116, p. 450, § 4, effective May 7.
Editor's note: Section 8 of chapter 116 (HB 21-1031), Session Laws of Colorado 2021, provides that the act changing this section applies to any request to modify an order appealed on, after, or before May 7, 2021.
Cross references: (1) For the "Uniform Child-custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act", see article 13 of this title 14.
(2) For the legislative declaration in HB 21-1031, see section 1 of chapter 116, Session Laws of Colorado 2021.
14-10-131.3. Modification of the allocation of parental responsibilities and parenting time based upon military service - legislative declaration - definitions. (Repealed) Source: L. 2008: Entire section added, p. 331, § 1, effective August 5. L. 2013: Entire section repealed, (HB 13-1200), ch. 174, p. 624, § 1, effective May 10.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
89
cases (
23 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case:
In Re Marriage of Rozzi, 190 P.3d 815 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
In Re Marriage of Rozzi, 190 P.3d 815 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 12× “Father contends that once parental responsibilities were allocated in the initial parenting plan, any request to change or modify the allocation triggered the application of section 14-10-131, C.R.S.2007. The trial court did not indicate which standard it applied in concluding…”
of Crouch, 2021 COA 3 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 23× “§ 14-10-131(2). In applying these standards, the court shall retain the decision-making responsibility allocation from the prior decree unless, as relevant here, doing so “would endanger the child’s physical health” and the harm likely to be caused by a change in decision-making…”
In Re the Marriage of Francis, 919 P.2d 776 (Colo. 1996).
· cites it 28× “in the mother to joint custody, including a change in residential custody, in the event the mother decides “to attend schooling outside the State of Colorado?” 1 We conclude that when a trial court considers modification of a sole custody decree that would result in changing the…”
In Re the Marraige of Wall, 868 P.2d 387 (Colo. 1994).
· cites it 50× “Those terms, now assimilated into section 14-10-131, can be noted in the following highlighted portions of that provision: “14-10-131.”
In Re the Marriage of McNamara, 962 P.2d 330 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 8× “1997, in modifying custody, rather than the endangerment standard set forth in § 14-10-131, C.R.S. 1997. We disagree. Section 14-10-131.”
In Re Custody of C.C.R.S., 872 P.2d 1337 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 8× “" The court made no provision for any additional legal proceedings but noted that any further custody proceedings would be decided under § 14-10-131, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B), which precluded the mother from seeking a change of custody for at least two years from the date of…”
In Re the Marriage of Newell, 192 P.3d 529 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Under section 14-10-131(2)(c), C.R.8.2007, the court may modify a decree allocating decision-making responsibility if it finds that the retention of the existing allocation of decision-making responsibility would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair his…”
In Re the Marriage of Wall, 851 P.2d 224 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 13× “5(4) with § 14-10-131, to the extent this is possible.”
In Re the Marriage of Murphy, 834 P.2d 1287 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 10× “The trial court made none of the requisite findings under § 14-10-131, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B) to justify a modification of sole custody.”
In Re the Marriage of Garst, 955 P.2d 1056 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Although Francis concerned removal in the context of a sole custodial situation, nevertheless, the court there ruled that, because of the importance of a child’s continuing stability in his or her relationship with the residential custodian, the endangerment standard of §…”
In Re the Marriage of Hatton, 160 P.3d 326 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “In applying these standards, the court shall retain the allocation of decision-making responsibility established in the prior decree unless [the court finds one of the circumstances set forth in § 14-10-131(2)(a)(c), C.R.S.2006]. Under § 14-10-131(2)(c), the allocation of…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-131(1) — 3 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-131(2) — 44 cases
In Re Marriage of Rozzi, 190 P.3d 815 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“Father contends that once parental responsibilities were allocated in the initial parenting plan, any request to change or modify the allocation triggered the application of section 14-10-131, C.R.S.2007. The trial court did not indicate which standard it applied in concluding…”
In Re the Marraige of Wall, 868 P.2d 387 (Colo. 1994).
“Those terms, now assimilated into section 14-10-131, can be noted in the following highlighted portions of that provision: “14-10-131.”
of Crouch, 2021 COA 3 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
“§ 14-10-131(2). In applying these standards, the court shall retain the decision-making responsibility allocation from the prior decree unless, as relevant here, doing so “would endanger the child’s physical health” and the harm likely to be caused by a change in decision-making…”
In Re the Marriage of Murphy, 834 P.2d 1287 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
“The trial court made none of the requisite findings under § 14-10-131, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B) to justify a modification of sole custody.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-131(2)(a) — 5 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-131(2)(a)(c) — 3 cases
In Re the Marriage of Hatton, 160 P.3d 326 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“In applying these standards, the court shall retain the allocation of decision-making responsibility established in the prior decree unless [the court finds one of the circumstances set forth in § 14-10-131(2)(a)(c), C.R.S.2006]. Under § 14-10-131(2)(c), the allocation of…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-131(2)(b) — 3 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-131(2)(c) — 24 cases
of Crouch, 2021 COA 3 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
“§ 14-10-131(2). In applying these standards, the court shall retain the decision-making responsibility allocation from the prior decree unless, as relevant here, doing so “would endanger the child’s physical health” and the harm likely to be caused by a change in decision-making…”
In Re the Marriage of Newell, 192 P.3d 529 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“Under section 14-10-131(2)(c), C.R.8.2007, the court may modify a decree allocating decision-making responsibility if it finds that the retention of the existing allocation of decision-making responsibility would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair his…”
In Re the Marraige of Wall, 868 P.2d 387 (Colo. 1994).
“Those terms, now assimilated into section 14-10-131, can be noted in the following highlighted portions of that provision: “14-10-131.”
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.