Title: Colorado: This Appeal Concerns A Dispute Between Parents Of A Child And A Women With Whom The Child Is Living. BY: Lindsay G.

Link for opinion: http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=7493&courtid=1

In an Unpublished Opinion, In re Parental Responsibilities of M.J.K., 200 P.3d 1106 (Colo. App. 2008), Adriana Henderson is the adoptive mother of E.B.H. She appeals from the order awarding sole decision-making authority and majority parenting time to Randy Reese and Candice Reese (petitioners).

Mother began caring for E.B.H., who is the biological child of her husband’s cousin, soon after the child was born in 2004. The petitioners, who attended the same church as mother, offered to assist her in caring for the child. After mother agreed, the petitioners began to care for the child and their care gradually increased until early 2005 when, according to the petitioners, the child was living full-time with them and had only minimal contact with mother. Nonetheless, mother adopted the child in July 2005.
For the next three years, the mother did not object to the petitioners’ care of the child, including taking her out of Colorado for vacations. In December 2007, a dispute arose between the parties involving mother’s request to have the child for a week at Christmas, and mother reported that the child had been kidnapped. A police officer went to the petitioners’ home and saw that the child was living with them. No charges were brought as a result of the incident. However, the petitioners then filed a petition for allocation of parental responsibilities pursuant to section 14-10-123, C.R.S. 2009.
The trial court appointed a child and family investigator (CFI) who conducted an investigation and recommended that the petitioners have primary parental responsibilities. After addressing the parenting time considerations provided in section 14-10- 124(1.5), C.R.S. 2009, and concluding that the record supported the CFI’s findings regarding the allocation of decision-making responsibility, the court found it was in the child’s best interest to grant the petitioners sole decision-making responsibility and nearly all parenting time. The court granted mother parenting time of one weekday per week and every other Saturday, additional holiday time, and no overnight time.
The court entered its orders regarding parenting time and decision-making responsibility "based upon the standard of the best interest of the child." However, it did not state that it had done so based on clear and convincing evidence.
Although the court found that the petitioners had "more than established by clear and convincing evidence as a matter of fact that they are psychological parents to this child," this finding was not sufficient. In our view, this finding only determined that the petitioners had standing to seek parental responsibilities under the statute. Moreover, shortly after making that threshold finding, the court found that the petitioners had "met the burden of proving by preponderance if not more that they are psychological parents."
Labels for the post: child visitation, adoption, visitation rights