Won Sole Decision-Making for Parent and Permanent Relocation of Teen

It’s difficult for a non-custodial divorced parent to support their teen who is experiencing mental health challenges. The effort becomes more arduous when the custodial parent is unwilling to admit to their role in the matter. 

In this case, a noncustodial parent retained R&H to address concerns over their child’s physical safety and psychological well-being. During one parenting time visit, the teen confided in our client that the other parent had engaged in emotionally and physically abusive behaviors and that their living situation was untenable. Our client feared their child was capable of harming themselves, particularly after learning that the other parent had actively taken steps to deny them access to therapy. 

Our team was quick to file an emergency motion to restrict the custodial parent’s parenting time, despite their best efforts to delay proceedings. We also asked the judge to interview the teen, even though courts are typically hesitant to grant interviews with minors. We relied on C.R.S. 14-10-126 to argue that family courts may exercise broad discretion when interviewing children in chambers. In this case, the minor child was a teenager and the only reliable witness. 

The court responded favorably to our petition, allowing the teen to share their story privately with the judge while protecting due process for the parties by allowing observation via a secure web-conferencing service and screened follow-up questions. In response, the court granted our client the restriction, allowing the teen to reside with our client in a more stable and safe environment. Eventually, all parties agreed to a stipulated parenting plan, which included full parenting time, sole decision-making authority, and, importantly, no required contact with the other parent.