Motion to Restrict Parenting Requires Hearing in Colorado

Gavel banging on cubes forming the word Appeal

OK, the title doesn’t perfectly capture the essence of a brand-new ruling that the Colorado Supreme Court issued today, but web titles have limited space constraints. A proper summary of the holding would be “When a parent has filed a motion to restrict parenting time alleging with particularity its grounds, the trial court must grant a hearing, and cannot deny one by finding that even if true, the facts would not support a restriction.”

In Colorado, upon a party filing a motion to restrict parenting, the other’s parenting time is automatically restricted until a hearing can be held:

“A motion to restrict parenting time or parental contact with a parent which alleges that the child is in imminent physical or emotional danger due to the parenting time or contact by the parent shall be heard and ruled upon by the court not later than fourteen days after the day of the filing of the motion. Any parenting time which occurs during such fourteen-day period after the filing of such a motion shall be supervised…”

C.R.S. 14-10-129(4) (Emphasis added).

Old Rule – Summarily Deny “Facially Insufficient” Motion to Restrict

But will any old motion do? In 2008, the Colorado Court of Appeals held that a trial court can be the “gatekeeper” to determine whether the allegations in a motion to restrict parenting were facially insufficient, and if so, no hearing was needed:

“facially insufficient” means that, after taking all the allegations in the verified motion as true, there is no set of facts or circumstances that could give rise to the conclusion that the children are in imminent danger of  physical or emotional injury. serious enough to warrant a hearing.”

Slowinski.1In re: Marriage of Slowinski, 199 P.3d 48, 54 (Colo.App. 2008).

With this holding, Slowinski applied the standard that a motion to restrict parenting may be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”  – what lawyers think of as the Colo. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) standard. In other words, even if everything alleged were true, so what? It would still not result in the degree of imminent harm required to justify restricting the other parent’s custody.

In Wollert,2In re: Marriage of Wollert, 2020 CO 47.​ the trial court denied the father’s motion to restrict the mother’s parenting time without a hearing, on the grounds that while the alienation he was alleging was serious, it needed to be resolved after a full hearing, not on an emergency basis.

The father appealed denial of his motion to restrict parenting, and in an unusual move, the Colorado Supreme Court granted father’s Colo. R. App. P. 21 petition to exercise original jurisdiction without waiting for the normal appeals process. And the court reversed the trial court, finding a hearing was required before a trial court can reject a parent’s allegations of child endangerment.

Child Endangerment Alleged in Motion to Restrict

The parents in Wollert had a 12-year history of contentious litigation. The Supreme Court noted that there were 650 docket entries, and in those 12 years had numerous professionals appointed, including 3 Child & Family Investigators, a Parental Responsibilities Evaluator, 2 reintegration therapists, and others.

Motion to Restrict Parenting Alleging Alienation

The first reintegration therapist concluded that the mother had been alienating the child from the father, and after 17 months on the case, the second reintegration therapist agreed, issuing an 18-page treatment summary with specific examples of mother’s alleged alienating conduct. The therapist concluded that the mother’s “severe parental alienation” was putting the child in “imminent psychological and emotional danger,” and constituted child abuse. In other words, the child was endangered – this was one parent who could not credibly claim a free speech right to badmouth the father!

The father, who already had a motion to modify parenting pending, promptly filed a motion to restrict the mother’s time, incorporating the therapist’s allegations. The mother opposed the motion, attaching a copy of a letter from the child’s individual therapist saying the child may well commit self-harm if placed in the father’s custody.

The issue facing the Colorado Supreme Court was:

“how does a district court discern whether a motion to restrict satisfies the condition set forth in the statutory provision? Stated differently, what standard must the court use to determine whether a motion to restrict adequately ‘alleges that the child is in imminent physical or emotional danger due to the parenting time or contact by the parent’?”

Wollert.3In re: Marriage of Wollert, 2020 CO 47, ¶ 22.

The trial court denied the father’s motion without a hearing, finding there was “no set of facts or circumstances that could give rise to a conclusion that the child [was] in imminent physical or emotional danger.” Wollert.4In re: Marriage of Wollert, 2020 CO 47, ¶ 3. The Supreme Court reversed.

Motion Needs “Particularities” of Child Endangerment

Colo. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) provides that a motion “shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought.” In Wollert, the Court held that this provision provided the only basis for a trial court to deny a motion to restrict without granting a hearing:

Specific Details of Child Endangerment

“Simply parroting the statutory buzzwords – ‘the child is in imminent physical or emotional danger’ – will not suffice. Rather, a motion to restrict must state with particularity the bases for seeking to restrict parenting time, and if it fails to do so, the court should deny it outright without a hearing. But if a motion to restrict does satisfy the particularity requirement in Rule 7(b)(1), it ‘shall be heard . . . not later than fourteen days after the day of the filing of the motion.’ § 14-10-129(4). In other words, when a motion meets Rule 7(b)(1)’s particularity requirement, the statute gives the court no choice but to hold a hearing within fourteen days. The court may not resolve such a motion without a hearing.

Wollert.5In re: Marriage of Wollert, 2020 CO 47, ¶ 27.

The policy behind this requirement: “Section 14-10-129(4) requires courts to err on the side of protecting children, even if that means holding a hearing on a Rule 7(b)(1)-compliant motion that, at least on paper, may not appear to have a great chance of prevailing.” Wollert.6In re: Marriage of Wollert, 2020 CO 47, ¶ 40.

In a classic example of understatement, the Court recognized that its holding “does not set an especially demanding standard.” ¶ 28. And to replace the trial judge as gatekeeper, it is counting on a combination of attorneys acting as professionals and not filing frivolous motions, plus the threat of sanctions against a party who does file a frivolous one.

This case is part of an increasing trend in the Colorado Court of Appeals to require hearings in post-decree child custody matters, rather than letting trial judges deny motions summarily. See our article in the Colorado Family Law Guide for more information on modification of parenting time in Colorado.

Dissent: “Enough Is Enough” Does Not Show Imminent Harm

There was a vigorous dissent from two justices, pointing out that the allegations in the father’s motion, while serious, were simply “more of the same” rather than something brand-new that required a trial court to drop everything and conduct a hearing:

“There is a difference between imminent harm and ‘enough is enough.’ The former involves immediacy because something is about to happen; the latter reflects frustration over the fact that bad behavior continues and a situation is not getting better. Father conflates the two by mistaking ongoing parental alienation with an emergency warranting the extreme consequences arising from emergency motions under section 14-10-129(4)”

Wollert.7In re: Marriage of Wollert, 2020 CO 47, ¶ 43.

The dissent also noted: “But my point is that extremely serious allegations do not equate to imminent danger allegations. For the purposes of section 14-10-129(4), that distinction is crucial.” ¶ 53.

Award-Winning Family Law Attorney In Colorado Springs

U.S. News & World Report calls Graham.Law one of the Best Law Firms in America, and our managing partner is a Colorado Super Lawyer. Our family law attorneys have years of experience helping clients navigate the Colorado legal system. We know Colorado divorce & family law inside and out, from complex multi-million dollar property or child custody cases to basic child support modifications.

For more information about our top-rated El Paso County family law firm, contact us by filling out the form on the right or calling us at (719) 630-1123 to set up a free consult, or click on:

Colorado Family Law. Period.


  • Excellent discussion; fully answered all my questions with examples I could clearly understand

    Jane Rohr Avatar
    Jane Rohr
  • Carl Graham is by far the best divorce attorney I have used and would highly recommend him to anyone who is looking for an ethical, knowledgable, fair attorney. My case was not your normal circumstanc... read more

    Gary Oldguy Avatar
    Gary Oldguy
  • As a former military spouse trying to collect my share of my ex's military retirement from California when the divorce decree and all the supporting documents were filed in Colorado i was apprehensive... read more

    Janine Pandher Avatar
    Janine Pandher
  • Where do I begin? Well AFTER have a consultation with another attorney ( who made me feel as though i was undeserving of his expertise) I was extremely apprehensive when coming to Graham Law. This was... read more

    Chris Whitfield Avatar
    Chris Whitfield
  • Mr. Carl Graham, Cindi (his paralegal), and the rest of his office staff helped us with a military divorce. Mr. Graham is very knowledgeable about military ways and processes. I appreciated the fact... read more

    Shelle Dier Avatar
    Shelle Dier
  • If you are searching for a divorce lawyer, first I would like to say I’m sorry you are going through this. It isn’t and easy road. I know sometimes things just don’t work out to save your marriage. Ho... read more

    Trevor Lisby Avatar
    Trevor Lisby
  • If you are searching for a divorce lawyer, first I would like to say I’m sorry you are going through this. It isn’t and easy road. I know sometimes things just don’t work out to save your marriage. Ho... read more

    Trevor Lisby Avatar
    Trevor Lisby
  • I called Graham law firm to schedule a consultation and spoke with Corinna. When beginning your search for information with any family matters there are many questions and a sense of anxiety of the u... read more

    Kathlena Williams Avatar
    Kathlena Williams
  • I was divorced in CO but moved to TX & had issues with my divorce decree from a previous attorney- after referrals from several other firms in CO regarding the best military law firm I went with Graha... read more

    Sarah DeLorean Avatar
    Sarah DeLorean
  • Very helpful initial meeting.

    Steven Babbitt Avatar
    Steven Babbitt
  • Carl and his team are awesome and super easy to work with. His knowledge is tremendous and he quickly handled my case despite me being across the country. I would do business with his team again and... read more

    Michael Brooks Avatar
    Michael Brooks
  • I was impressed by Graham Law in general but most impressed with Brian Boney. Brian is an excellent family law attorney. Attentive, detail-oriented, and hard-working, Brian surpassed my expectations f... read more

    Robert Weeks Avatar
    Robert Weeks
  • Mr. Grahm was professional, knowledgable and very prepared. He was also kind and understanding. He knew his military in's and outs. Because of this is got exactly what I was asking for... a swift a... read more

    MAMCO STAFF Avatar
  • I had the unpleasant task of taking my ex back to court. Carl was the person for the job. His attention to detail and professionalism got me the result I needed. Sincere thanks to Carl and his great s... read more

    Lisa Bruinsma Avatar
    Lisa Bruinsma
  • This firm is quite wonderful....very family and military oriented. Compassionate and patient, very understanding and will go to bat for you!!!!! Give them a call!!!!!

    Teresa Wilkie Avatar
    Teresa Wilkie
  • Brian did an amazing job helping me with a personal matter! Its not the first time I ask Brian for help, and every time he exceeds my expectations! Thank you for your kindness, understanding and suppo... read more

    Iryna Volynets Avatar
    Iryna Volynets
  • Divorce is never easy, but Carl and his warm team helped me navigate this very difficult time. This was a military divorce, so Carl's expertise helped me understand exactly what my options were as a f... read more

    Kara Longmire Avatar
    Kara Longmire
  • I have had two occasions that I have needed Carl Graham's assistance with child support issues and both times Mr. Graham and his team were amazing. Mr. Graham is straight forward and honest. I highly ... read more

    Jason Ragland Avatar
    Jason Ragland
  • Can't thank the team enough.

    Kevin Czarnecki Avatar
    Kevin Czarnecki
  • Very professional and extremely supportive throughout my needs.

    Doyle McNeil Avatar
    Doyle McNeil