Colorado

Statutory framework; nine parenting-time considerations and a separate evidence and findings rule, plus three decision-making considerations.

Authority

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-124(1.5), (1.6), (3)

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

9 parenting-time considerations plus a separately numbered evidentiary and findings provision (§ 14-10-124(1.5)(a)(III.5)); 3 additional decision-making considerations (§ (1.5)(b)).

Operative language

shall

Catch-all language

preamble

Presumptions in the original survey

No equal-time or mutual-decision presumption; safety rules apply

Scope, exceptions and safeguards

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

Irretrievable breakdown. If a party denies breakdown under oath or affirmation, the court considers the relevant factors and either makes a breakdown finding or continues for further hearing 35 to 63 days later, or as soon afterward as the court calendar permits (§ 14-10-110(2)).

Authority

Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 14-10-106, -110 (2025), checked against the legislature’s 2026 Red Book.

Grounds without a misconduct showing

Irretrievable breakdown. If a party denies breakdown under oath or affirmation, the court considers the relevant factors and either makes a breakdown finding or continues for further hearing 35 to 63 days later, or as soon afterward as the court calendar permits (§ 14-10-110(2)).

Other grounds and proof conditions

No additional grounds identified.

Separation

No general separation period identified for the ordinary breakdown route. See the ground and timing conditions.

Timing

91 days after the court acquires jurisdiction over the respondent. This is not invariably 91 days from filing.

Relief without dissolution

Yes, § 14-10-106(2)

Compare divorce grounds nationally

Statutory relocation factors. Neither parent favored. Notice required; no fixed day count.

Authority

C.R.S. 14-10-129

Court test

statutory relocation factors

Burden classification

equal burden (neither parent favored)

Notice classification

yes

Trigger classification

functional (move that significantly affects the parenting arrangement)

Effect of silence

not addressed (no objection deadline; the move is decided on a motion to modify parenting time)

What the court weighs

Best interests of the child, considering all relevant factors, including domestic violence (proved by a preponderance), the 14-10-124(1.5)(a) factors, and nine relocation factors: the reasons for the move. The reasons for the objection. The history and quality of each party's relationship with the child. Educational opportunities at both locations. Extended family at both locations. The advantages of remaining with the primary caregiver. The anticipated impact of the move on the child. Whether a reasonable parenting schedule can be fashioned. And other relevant factors (14-10-129(2)(c)(I)-(IX)). There is no presumption for either parent, and the court must weigh both parents' constitutional interests, including the relocating parent's right to travel (Ciesluk).

Who carries the burden

Both parents share the burden equally of demonstrating what is in the child's best interests. There is no presumption for the majority-time parent and no burden shift (In re Marriage of Ciesluk, 113 P.3d 135 (Colo. 2005)).

Notice and safety exceptions

Yes, but with no day count. A party intending to relocate with the child to a residence that substantially changes the child's geographical ties to the other party must give that party written notice 'as soon as practicable' of the intent to relocate, the new location, the reason, and a proposed revised parenting-time plan (14-10-129(1)(a)(II)).

Which moves trigger the rule

A party with whom the child resides a majority of the time intends to relocate to a residence that substantially changes the geographical ties between the child and the other party (14-10-129(1)(a)(II), (2)(c)). No mileage threshold.

Objections and the effect of silence

No statutory deadline. The relocation is decided on a motion to modify parenting time, and the hearing is given priority on the court's docket (14-10-129(1)(a)(II), (2)(c)). Silence does not authorize the move.

The modification threshold

For a modification that substantially changes parenting time and changes the majority-residence party, § 14-10-129(2) requires facts arising since, or unknown to the court at, the prior decree showing a change in the child’s or majority-residence party’s circumstances and that modification is necessary to serve the child’s best interests. The court retains the prior schedule unless a listed exception applies; subsection (2)(c) lists the majority-time party’s intent to relocate with the child in a way substantially changing geographical ties to the other party. Section (1.5) separately excepts that qualifying intended relocation from the two-year restriction on repeat substantial-modification motions. In Ciesluk the Colorado Supreme Court read the statute so that a majority-time parent’s intended relocation is itself the change in circumstances that lets the court consider modification; the court must still find that modification serves the child’s best interests under the § 14-10-129(2)(c) factors, and the endangerment standard for restricting parenting time does not apply in relocation cases (§ 14-10-129(1)(b)(II)). Subsection (1.5) has not been construed in the cited authority.

Other qualifications

The statute gives a relocation hearing priority on the court's docket and lists domestic violence, proved by a preponderance, as defined in § 14-10-124(1.3) since May 27, 2026, as the first relocation factor. Ciesluk puts the best-interest burden on both parents equally.

Burden summary

Neither parent favored

Notice summary

Notice required; no fixed day count

Trigger summary

Effect on parenting arrangement

Compare parental relocation nationally