Parental rights - Colorado
Parental rights in Colorado
2 of 3 questions have been reviewed for Colorado. A question shown as "Not yet reviewed" makes no claim either way.
Educational reference, not legal advice. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Family law is state-specific and it changes: a statute or case cited here may have been amended, repealed or overruled since the review date shown. Verify against the primary source before relying on anything on this page, and talk to a lawyer licensed in your state about your own situation.
When a non-parent or the state asks a court to override a fit parent's decision about their child, what must they show?
Colorado: Not yet reviewed
Not yet reviewed. This page makes no claim about Colorado on this question.
Can parents' own custody or child-support agreement bind them without a judge approving it?
Colorado: Court approval required to bind
Statute: C.R.S. sec. 14-10-112(2), (6)
Colorado follows the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act model. A separation agreement binds the court unless it is unconscionable, but that rule expressly excludes the terms on parental responsibilities, child support and parenting time, which the court decides. Those terms also stay modifiable even if the agreement says otherwise.
Authority
- C.R.S. sec. 14-10-112(2), (6) Statute
the terms of the separation agreement, except terms providing for the allocation of parental responsibilities, support, and parenting time of children, are binding upon the court unless it finds, after considering the economic circumstances of the parties and any other relevant evidence produced by the parties, on their own motion or on request of the court, that the separation agreement is unconscionable. ... Except for terms concerning the support, the allocation of decision-making responsibility, or parenting time of children, the decree may expressly preclude or limit modification of terms set forth in the decree if the separation agreement so provides.
One parent enrols the child in daycare, an activity or a private school without the other's agreement. Must the other parent pay a share?
Colorado: Child care share limited to work or education related cost
Statute: C.R.S. sec. 14-10-115(9), (11)(a)
Net child care is added to support only when incurred because of a parent's employment, job search or education, and it is capped at the level of quality licensed care. Costs of a special or private school, and of transport between homes, are divided only by agreement of the parties or by order of court, and only if reasonable and necessary.
Authority
- C.R.S. sec. 14-10-115(9), (11)(a) Statute
Net child care costs incurred on behalf of the children due to employment or job search or the education of either parent shall be added to the basic obligation and shall be divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes. (b) Child care costs shall not exceed the level required to provide quality care from a licensed source for the children. ... By agreement of the parties or by order of court, the following reasonable and necessary expenses incurred on behalf of the child must be divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted gross income: (I) Any expenses for attending any special or private elementary or secondary schools to meet the particular educational needs of the child
How this was checked
Every citation here was checked against the primary source rather than a summary. U.S. Supreme Court quotes come from the official United States Reports PDFs published by the Library of Congress, and the reporter page shown is the page the quoted words actually print on. State case quotes come from the Caselaw Access Project's page-anchored text of the official reporter. Statutes and regulations are quoted from the issuing legislature's or agency's own site. Quotes are normalised to plain ASCII, which changes punctuation only, never words. Holdings are distinguished from dicta and from concurrences and dissents, which bind nobody, and contrary authority is included and labelled. Not yet reviewed is NOT a finding: it means nobody has read that jurisdiction's law for this question yet, and such a row carries no claim at all. No authority found is a different and weaker statement: a search was run and turned up nothing on point, which is not proof that nothing exists.
Dataset last reviewed 2026-10-17.