CRS 14-10-124: Child’s Best Interests, Parenting Time, Decisions

In Colorado, the best interests of the child is the single standard a judge uses to decide parenting time and decision-making whenever parents split up, and the child’s safety outranks every other consideration. The rules live in Colorado Revised Statutes Section 14-10-124, and they apply across divorce, legal separation, and standalone petitions to allocate parental responsibilities, both for initial orders and later modifications.¹

The statute does two things that often get blurred together. It sets the factors a judge weighs to build a parenting time schedule, and it sets a separate (overlapping) list for deciding who holds decision-making authority over major issues like school, medical care, and religion. Both analyses sit on top of a safety screen: if there is a credible allegation of abuse, domestic violence, or sexual assault, the court addresses that first and lets the answer shape everything downstream.

What the Judge Weighs for Parenting Time

Section 14-10-124(1.5)(a) lists the factors Colorado courts consider when deciding how parenting time gets divided. The court looks at all relevant circumstances, and no single factor controls the outcome. The named factors are:¹

Each parent’s wishes about parenting time.
The child’s wishes, if the child is mature enough to express a reasoned, independent preference. The statute sets no age cutoff; judges evaluate maturity case by case.
How the child interacts with each parent, siblings, and anyone else who meaningfully affects the child’s life.
How well the child is adjusted to their current home, school, and community.
The physical and mental health of everyone involved. A disability by itself cannot be grounds to deny or restrict parenting time.
Whether each parent actively supports the child’s relationship with the other parent. A parent acting to protect the child from domestic violence or abuse is not penalized under this factor.
Whether each parent’s history with the child reflects real time, commitment, and mutual support.
How close the parents live to one another, since distance drives what schedules are workable.
Each parent’s ability to put the child’s needs ahead of their own.

The weighing is holistic. A parent who lives nearby but constantly undercuts the other parent will not win on proximity alone. A parent with a demanding schedule can still be a strong decision-maker and primary caregiver. Judges have to explain how the factors fit together, and the written reasoning behind the order should reflect that.

Who Makes the Major Decisions

Decision-making responsibility is a separate allocation from parenting time. It governs who has authority over major life choices: schooling, non-routine medical care, religious upbringing. Under Section 14-10-124(1.5)(b), the court can order joint decision-making on everything, give one parent sole authority, or split categories so each parent has final say in a defined area.¹

In addition to the parenting time factors, the court considers three decision-making-specific questions:

Whether credible evidence shows the parents can make decisions together. A record of productive communication supports joint authority; chronic conflict or stonewalling cuts against it.
Whether each parent’s past involvement and shared values suggest they can function as joint decision-makers going forward.
Whether shared decision-making will promote more frequent and continuing contact with both parents.

When one parent uses joint authority to obstruct, by withholding school information, blocking appointments, or forcing litigation over every disagreement, judges can and often do strip that parent of joint decision-making. A detailed parenting plan that spells out who contacts the school, who schedules the doctor, and what happens when the parents disagree reduces the pressure on this part of the order.

What the Court Cannot Consider

Two bright lines limit what a judge is allowed to weigh. Under Section 14-10-124(2), the court cannot factor in parental conduct that does not directly affect the parent’s relationship with the child. Lifestyle choices, dating life, and moral judgments about how a parent spends their free time are off limits unless they cause real harm to the child. Under Section 14-10-124(3), there is no presumption that one parent is better suited based on gender; mothers and fathers start even.¹

These prohibitions matter in practice. Hearing time spent attacking the other parent’s character without tying the conduct to the child’s welfare burns credibility. What moves a judge is specific evidence of how specific behavior affects the child.

When Abuse, Domestic Violence, or Sexual Assault Is Alleged

If any of these claims is raised, Section 14-10-124(4) requires the court to address them before applying the rest of the best-interests analysis. The safety question comes first, and the answer shapes the parenting plan that follows.¹

Each type of finding carries specific consequences:

Child abuse or neglect, proven by a preponderance of the evidence, takes joint decision-making off the table if the other parent or the child’s legal representative objects.
Domestic violence produces the same result over the objection of the other party, unless the court finds credible evidence the parents can still cooperate safely. Even then, the court cannot appoint a parenting coordinator just to make shared decision-making work.
Sexual assault that resulted in the child’s conception triggers a rebuttable presumption against sole, split, or joint decision-making by the offending parent, and the court must consider whether to prohibit or limit that parent’s parenting time entirely.

These findings commonly lead to supervised parenting time, mandatory completion of a domestic violence intervention program, or a complete denial of contact. When the court restricts a parent, it must document specific factual findings and may spell out what the restricted parent would need to do before seeking a modification.

Emergency Motions When a Child Is in Immediate Danger

If a child is in imminent physical or emotional danger from the other parent’s contact, a parent can file a motion to restrict parenting time, and the court must hear and rule on it within 14 days.¹ During those 14 days, any parenting time with the other parent must be supervised by an unrelated third party or a licensed mental health professional.

The legislature paired that fast track with a deterrent against misuse. If the court finds the motion was frivolous, groundless, or filed to harass, the filer pays the other party’s attorney fees and costs. Using the mechanism tactically backfires financially and permanently damages credibility with the judge.

Investigators and Evaluators the Court Can Appoint

Judges often need information they cannot gather from a hearing room. Colorado courts regularly appoint one of two kinds of professional to investigate the family and report back using the statutory factors.

A Child and Family Investigator (CFI) runs a focused investigation: interviews with each parent, observation of the child, contact with teachers, therapists, and other third parties, and a written report with recommendations. Privately paid CFI fees are capped at $3,250, though courts can approve additional charges for testimony, copying, or similar extras.² A state-paid option exists for families who qualify financially.

A Parental Responsibilities Evaluator (PRE) does a deeper evaluation, often with psychological testing and more extensive interviews. PREs have no fee cap, and costs frequently exceed $10,000. There is no state-paid option for a PRE, so both parties absorb the expense.² PREs must disclose billing policies and estimated costs upfront. Courts usually turn to a PRE only when a CFI’s investigation is not enough and the stakes justify the cost.

Best Interests When You’re Changing an Existing Order

A parenting plan is not permanent. Jobs change, children’s needs change, and arrangements that worked at age five do not always work at age twelve. The modification rules live in CRS 14-10-129, and the standard depends on what kind of change you’re asking for.³

Minor schedule adjustments that do not change where the child primarily lives can be modified whenever doing so serves the child’s best interests. Substantial changes, meaning those that significantly alter the schedule and shift the child’s primary residence to the other parent, carry a higher bar. The requesting parent has to show that circumstances have changed since the original order (or that facts unknown at the time have surfaced) and that modification is necessary for the child’s best interests.

After a motion for substantial modification is decided, a two-year waiting period applies before another one can be filed, whether the first motion was granted or denied. A new motion inside that window requires an affidavit showing the child’s current environment may endanger their physical health or significantly impair their emotional development, or that the primary parent is planning to relocate.³ The waiting period exists to prevent custody from being relitigated every few months, which would destabilize the child the standard is meant to protect.

1
Colorado Revised Statutes. Colorado Code 14-10-124 – Best Interests of the Child
2
Colorado Judicial Branch. Options for Court Appointed Parenting Professionals
3
Colorado Revised Statutes. Colorado Code 14-10-129 – Modification of Parenting Time