Few issues in Colorado family law are as emotional, or as legally tricky, as relocation cases. One parent wants to move for a new job, to be near family, or just wants a fresh start. The other parent wants the children close. And the court is caught in the middle, asked to weigh a parent’s freedom to live where they choose against a child’s need for both parents.
If you are thinking about a relocation case, the single most important thing to understand is this: Colorado applies two different standards depending on when you ask. A relocation request made before your custody orders are final (pre-decree) is governed by a completely different framework than one made after (post-decree). Technically speaking, a pre-decree relocation is not a relocation, rather, it’s a proposed two-state parenting plan. The two leading cases, Spahmer v. Gullette and In re Marriage of Ciesluk, were decided the same day in 2005, and together they define the entire landscape.
Here’s what you need to know.
The Statutory Backbone: C.R.S. §§ 14-10-124 and 14-10-129
Colorado relocation law runs on two statutes:
C.R.S. § 14-10-124 governs the initial allocation of parental responsibilities (what used to be called “custody”). It directs courts to allocate parenting time and decision-making according to the best interests of the child. C.R.S. § 14-10-124.
C.R.S. § 14-10-129 governs modification of parenting time after there are already parenting time orders, including when a parent intends to relocate in a way that substantially changes the child’s geographic ties to the other parent. C.R.S. § 14-10-129.
The line between these two statutes is the line between pre-decree and post-decree. Miss it, and you’re arguing the wrong case.
Pre-Decree Relocation: Spahmer v. Gullette
In both situations where parenting time orders have never been allocated, like Spahmer, or one where they already have, like Gullette, the parents stand on equal footing; it’s just a different analysis for each type of case.
That equality drives the holding in Spahmer v. Gullette. The Colorado Supreme Court held that in an initial determination to allocate parental responsibilities, a court cannot order a parent to live in a specific location. Instead, the court must accept the location where each parent intends to live and then allocate parenting time and decision-making in the child’s best interests accordingly.
The Court was also careful to explain why the pre-decree posture in Spahmer is different. A relocation motion under § 14-10-129 is only appropriate to modify parenting time after an initial proceeding. The initial allocation under § 14-10-124(1.5) is “separate and distinct” from a modification.
Practical takeaway (pre-decree): If no permanent orders exist yet, you do not frame your case as a “motion to relocate.” Frame it as an initial parenting plan built around where each parent will actually live. Tell the court your intended location clearly and early, and propose a workable schedule that flows from it.
Post-Decree Relocation: In re Marriage of Ciesluk
Once a decree is in place, a different standard applies. It’s easy to assume the parents are seemingly on unequal footing as there is usually a majority-time parent. However, legally speaking, that parent does not have a leg up. Or at least, they’re not supposed to. The legal burden is equal on both parents to show what serves the child’s best interests.
The controlling post-decree case is In re Marriage of Ciesluk. There, the Supreme Court interpreted the amended § 14-10-129 and eliminated the presumption in favor of the majority-time parent seeking to relocate, and allowed both parents to share equally the burden of demonstrating what is in the child’s best interests.
No presumption for either parent. The amended statute eliminated the old Francis three-part test and its presumption in favor of the majority time parent who wants to relocate. Now both parents share equally the burden of demonstrating what is in the child’s best interests.
A detailed, fact-driven analysis. Before allowing a majority time parent to relocate, the court must weigh twenty-one relevant factors —the eleven best-interests factors from § 14-10-124(1.5)(a) plus nine additional factors tailored specifically tailored to relocation, such as each parent’s reasons for and against the move and whether a reasonable parenting-time schedule can still be fashioned.
Ciesluk looked at a few other different states to see how each dealt with relocations, namely Wyoming, Minnesota, and New Mexico. Wyoming said a parent’s constitutional right to travel is the end all and be all. Minnesota said that the child’s best interests trump. Colorado took something of a “Goldilocks” approach – deciding that the New Mexico approach of Jaramillo – weighing the best interests with a parent’s constitutional right to travel – best comports with Colorado Law. This means that neither parent carries a special burden, and both must show how the child’s best interests will be affected by the proposed move.
Practical takeaway (post-decree): Expect a real evidentiary fight. There is no thumb on the scale for you just because you are the primary residential parent. Build your case factor by factor.
Pre-Decree vs. Post-Decree at a Glance
|
Pre-Decree (*Spahmer v. Gullette*) |
Post-Decree (*Ciesluk*) |
|
|
Governing statute |
§ 14-10-124 (initial allocation) |
§ 14-10-129 (modification) |
|
Parents’ footing |
Equal |
Equal: but different analysis |
|
Can the court order where a parent lives? |
No. Court accepts each parent’s intended location Spahmer v. Gullette |
Still no, but not the issue; court decides whether the child may move In re Marriage of Ciesluk |
|
Burden |
Both parents |
Both parents, no more majority parent persumption |
|
Framework |
11 best-interests factors |
21 factors (11 + 9 relocation-specific |
|
Court’s goal |
Create a two-state parenting plan that serves the child’s best interests |
Look at how 21 factors are each served by the respective circumstances and secondary effects of the child residing with either parent. Neither parent’s proposed residence or proposed relocation is given a presumption. |
Why Stability and Family Wins Relocation Cases
Here is the theme that ties both cases together. Colorado courts are, at bottom, protecting stability. The Spahmer Court said it directly: the goal of the initial proceeding is to create a stable situation between the new family units, while the goal of a modification proceeding is to maintain the stability the child has achieved in the post-decree family unit.
That single idea should shape how you present a relocation case — because “stability” is not an abstraction. It is proven with facts about the child’s life on the ground. And that is where having a family, or building one, matters enormously.
Whether you are the parent seeking to move or the parent opposing it, the court is asking: where will this child have the more stable, supported, connected life? A parent who can show a real support network projects stability in concrete, provable ways:
Extended family at the destination:
grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins who can provide childcare, emotional support, and continuity. In both Spahmer and Ciesluk, the relocating mother’s reason for moving was to be near her own family. That is not a coincidence; family support is exactly the kind of fact that makes a move look stable rather than disruptive.
A blended or re-formed household: a new spouse or partner, step-siblings, and an established home life demonstrate that the child is moving into a family structure, not away from one.
Roots in the community: school enrollment, a home (not a temporary rental), a steady job, and involvement in activities all signal permanence.
The strategic point is simple: post decree relocation cases are won on best interests of the child and the additional factors in C.R.S. § 14-10-129, which include:
- Reasons for relocation: The underlying motivations and reasons why the moving parent wishes to relocate with the child.
- Reasons for objection: The specific reasons why the non-relocating parent opposes the proposed move.
- Relationship history: The quality and history of each parent’s relationship with the child since the last parenting time order was issued.
- Educational opportunities: The educational options, schools, and academic resources available at both the current location and the proposed new location.
- Extended family presence: The presence or absence of extended family members (like grandparents, aunts, uncles, or cousins) at both locations.
- Primary caregiver advantages: Any distinct benefits or stability the child receives by remaining primarily with the current primary caregiver.
- Impact of the move: The anticipated emotional, social, and developmental impact of the relocation on the child.
- New parenting schedule: Whether the court can successfully create a reasonable, practical parenting time schedule if the relocation is permitted.
- Other relevant factors (the catch all): Any additional, unlisted considerations that directly affect the overall best interests of the child.
A parent who surrounds the child with family, a settled home, and a durable routine gives the court the concrete evidence it needs to find that the child’s life will be stable, wherever that life is located. A parent who cannot show those things looks like a flight risk, not a stable home.
Key Takeaways
Timing controls the standard. Pre-decree relocation is governed by Spahmer v. Gullette and C.R.S. § 14-10-124; post-decree relocation is governed by Ciesluk and C.R.S. § 14-10-129.
Before a decree, the court cannot order you to live anywhere — it accepts your intended location as it is and allocates parenting time in the child’s best interests. Spahmer v. Gullette.
After a decree, the Court still can’t order you to live anywhere – but there is no presumption for the majority time parent; both parents share the burden equally under a twenty-one-factor best interests analysis. In re Marriage of Ciesluk.
Stability is the throughline. Courts protect the child’s stability in the family unit Spahmer v. Gullette: so a demonstrable family and support network is one of the strongest ways to project the stability that wins these cases.
This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. Relocation cases are intensely fact-specific; consult a Colorado family law attorney about your situation.
