In re Marriage of Dale.
2025 COA 29. No. 24CA1065. Modification of Parenting Time—Restriction of Parenting Time—Quantitative Versus Qualitative Reduction.
March 13, 2025
Father and mother created a memorandum of understanding allocating parental responsibilities for their child. The district court accepted the agreement and incorporated it into the decree of invalidity of marriage as its final order. Father subsequently moved to modify parenting time to accommodate a change in his work schedule that resulted in him establishing a second residence over 100 miles from the child’s primary residence. The court concluded that a modification was necessary because father’s schedule had changed, and it modified father’s parenting time from approximately 160 to 115 overnights per year.
As an initial matter on appeal, mother argued that father did not preserve his claim that the court applied the wrong legal standard because he agreed to the court’s application of the best interests of the child standard. However, neither party requested or anticipated a reduction of the magnitude ordered by the court. Accordingly, there was no reason for father to raise the issue of the endangerment standard, so he did not waive or otherwise failed to preserve his argument on appeal.
On the merits, father argued that the modification constituted a restriction of his parenting time requiring application of the endangerment standard under CRS § 14-10-129(1)(b)(I). The court of appeals concluded that a purely quantitative reduction in a parent’s parenting time by itself cannot constitute a restriction on parenting time under § 14-10-129(1)(b)(I). Rather, a restriction on a parent’s parenting time rights imposes “a qualitative control over the manner, location, or environment in which the parent engages in parenting time . . . .” Here, the district court’s parenting time plan did not impose a qualitative control, so the endangerment standard was inapplicable. The court was required to, and did, consider the child’s best interests, and father did not contest the court’s resolution of those factors.
The court also denied mother’s request for attorney fees under C.A.R. 38.
The order was affirmed.