Allocation of Parental Responsibilities in Colorado — What Most People Call "Custody"

A non-parent does not have automatic standing to seek APR in Colorado. Under C.R.S. § 14-10-123, a non-parent has standing only when the child is not in the physical care of either parent, OR when the non-parent has had the child in physical care for at least 182 days and files within 182 days of that physical care ending, OR when the non-parent already has a juvenile-court custody order.

LLP scope: An uncontested non-parent APR (for example, both parents agree a grandmother who has been raising the child should have an APR order) may fit inside LLP scope. Any non-parent APR that is contested by at least one parent falls outside LLP scope under C.R.C.P. 207.1(2)(f) and routes to a supervising Novo attorney.

A parent who wants to relocate with a child after a parenting-time order is in place generally files a motion to modify under C.R.S. § 14-10-129(2)(c). The court applies a list of statutory factors — reasons for the move, reasons for the objection, the history and quality of each party's relationship with the child, the anticipated impact on the child, and any history of domestic violence — without any presumption for or against the move. The Colorado Supreme Court's decision in In re Marriage of Ciesluk, 113 P.3d 135 (Colo. 2005), confirms that both parents bear an equal burden.

LLP scope: Most relocation cases are LLP-eligible parenting-time modifications. Fernanda files (or opposes) the motion and represents the client through the best-interest hearing. A relocation case escalates to a supervising Novo attorney when it ties to a third-party APR overlay, when an appeal is filed or contemplated, or when the relocation triggers a UCCJEA jurisdiction dispute. We make the LLP-versus-attorney call at intake based on what the case actually involves, not on the word "relocation" alone.

When domestic violence, child abuse, neglect, or coercive control is part of the family history, C.R.S. § 14-10-124 requires the court to weigh it as a best-interest factor and limits the presumption that contact with both parents serves the child. Recent Colorado legislation, HB24-1350 (effective August 7, 2024), strengthened these provisions further — defining coercive control, requiring CFIs and PREs to address domestic-violence findings, and requiring courts to document their reasoning when granting unsupervised parenting time despite credible abuse allegations.

LLP scope: A civil protection order entered within a domestic-relations case may sit inside LLP scope. Criminal domestic-violence defense is never in LLP scope — those matters route to Novo's criminal-defense team. When APR is layered with a criminal-DV file involving the other parent or with active protection-order proceedings, the family-law file and the criminal file are coordinated under attorney supervision.

When a parent alleges that the child faces imminent physical or emotional danger in the other parent's care, the parent can file a motion for emergency restrictions on parenting time under C.R.S. § 14-10-129(4). The court must rule on the motion within 14 days of filing — the "forthwith hearing" requirement. Any contact during the pendency of the motion must be supervised by an unrelated third party or a licensed mental-health professional.

LLP scope: An emergency-restriction motion is contested-litigation territory on a forced timeline. Fernanda can handle intake, file the motion, and coordinate with a supervising Novo attorney for the evidentiary hearing — but the hearing itself often calls for attorney representation. We tell you which posture fits at intake.

When parents live in different states, or when one parent has moved with the child recently, jurisdiction over the APR case is governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), codified at C.R.S. § 14-13-101 et seq. The act determines which state is the "home state" (generally the state where the child has lived for at least six consecutive months (approximately 182 days) immediately before the case is filed), when Colorado can exercise emergency jurisdiction, when courts must decline jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum, and how simultaneous proceedings in two states get resolved.

LLP scope: UCCJEA contests are interstate-jurisdiction litigation and route to a supervising Novo attorney. UCCJEA issues come up regularly for mixed-status families and for parents who have moved across state lines recently — including from another country, where the international application of UCCJEA adds complexity. If your case involves a parent abroad or a recent interstate move with the child, tell us at intake.

Yes. Colorado replaced the word "custody" with "Allocation of Parental Responsibilities" (APR) in 1999. The court uses the legal term; most people still say "custody." Both refer to the same body of law — how Colorado courts decide who makes major decisions for a child and how parenting time is shared.

They are two separate allocations under the same statute. Decision-making responsibility is the authority to make major long-term decisions — education, medical care, religious upbringing, significant extracurricular activities. Parenting time is when each parent is responsible for the child day to day. A court can allocate them differently — sole decision-making to one parent while parenting time is shared, for example.

In most cases, yes. Colorado authorizes Licensed Legal Paraprofessionals (LLPs) under C.R.C.P. 207.1 to represent clients in APR matters from intake through final order — including the initial allocation, modification of parenting time, and most relocation motions. LLP scope does have limits: contested non-parent APR, UCCJEA jurisdiction disputes, and appeals route to a supervising Novo attorney. We make that call at intake.

Only when specific statutory thresholds are met. Under C.R.S. § 14-10-123, a non-parent has standing only when the child is not in the physical care of either parent, OR when the non-parent has had the child in physical care for at least 182 days and files within 182 days of that physical care ending, OR when the non-parent has a juvenile-court custody order. A non-parent APR contested by at least one parent generally requires a Novo attorney rather than an LLP.

A parent who wants to relocate with a child after a parenting-time order is in place generally files a motion to modify under C.R.S. § 14-10-129(2)(c). The court applies statutory factors — reasons for the move, reasons for the objection, the history and quality of each parent's relationship with the child, anticipated impact on the child, and any history of domestic violence — with no presumption either way. Most relocation cases fit inside LLP scope; ties to a third-party APR overlay or appellate posture move the case to a supervising attorney.

Courts apply the "best interests of the child" standard in C.R.S. § 14-10-124. The statute lists factors the court must weigh — the child's adjustment to home, school, and community; the parents' historical involvement; the parents' ability to encourage the child's relationship with the other parent; the mental and physical health of everyone involved; and credible reports of domestic violence, child abuse, or neglect, among others. The court explains its reasoning in the order.

Yes, with different bars depending on what you are trying to modify. Parenting-time modifications run under C.R.S. § 14-10-129 and generally apply a best-interest standard. Decision-making modifications run under C.R.S. § 14-10-131 and require a much higher showing — generally that the existing allocation would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development. Most modification work fits inside LLP scope.

A few facts: the names and ages of the children involved, the other parent's general location, whether there is an existing court order or pending case (in Colorado or any other state), whether either parent has recently moved with the child or wants to, and a one-sentence description of what you need help with. We do not need exact figures or documents at the screen. If your case fits, the next step is a paid 60-minute consultation, and we will tell you which professional — LLP or attorney — will lead the work before you book it.