## Facts

- Duane E. Christian (father) and Mark Avle Randall, formerly known as Gay Christensen Christian (mother), divorced in Nevada in 1964; the decree awarded custody of their four daughters to Randall.
- After the divorce, the children lived continuously with Randall and had resided with Randall in Colorado for about six years when the modification proceeding began.
- Christian, a Nevada resident, filed a custody modification petition in the Colorado District Court for Delta County seeking transfer of custody from Randall to himself.
- Evidence from county family and children’s services indicated the children were doing well in school, had friends, were adequately cared for, and had a good relationship with Randall.
- The record included substantial evidence that the daughters wished to remain with Randall.
- Randall was undergoing a gender transition from female to male, changed name, and married a woman; the trial court referenced these facts, but the record did not show adverse effects on the parent–child relationship or on the children’s well-being.
- The trial court expressed concern that the daughters were mentally disturbed, but the record lacked evidentiary support for that finding.
- The district court granted Christian’s petition and transferred custody to him; Randall appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence satisfied Colorado’s statutory requirements for modifying a prior custody decree, including that changed circumstances made modification necessary to serve the children’s best interests.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by transferring custody absent evidence that the children’s present environment endangered their health or significantly impaired their emotional development, or that the change’s advantages outweighed its harms.

## Decision

- The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the order transferring custody to Christian.
- The court remanded with directions to reinstate custody in Randall.
- The court held the record contained no evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that modification was necessary for the children’s best interests.
- The court concluded the trial court’s order was an abuse of discretion because the statutory prerequisites for modification were not met.

## Legal Principles

- A court may not modify a prior custody decree unless it finds (1) a change in circumstances of the child or custodian and (2) that modification is necessary to serve the child’s best interests; changed circumstances alone are insufficient.
- The existing custodian should be retained unless the child’s present environment endangers physical health or significantly impairs emotional development, and the likely benefits of a change outweigh the likely harm.
- A court should not base custody modification on parental conduct that has no demonstrated effect on the parent–child relationship or the child’s welfare.
- Appellate courts generally defer to trial court custody determinations, but reversal is required where there is no evidentiary support for the modification and the trial court therefore abuses its discretion.
- A custodial parent’s gender transition, name change, same-sex marriage, or financial reverses do not justify custody modification absent evidence of adverse impact on the children.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the original custodial arrangement because the children were thriving with their custodial parent and the record showed no harm to their physical health or emotional development; absent such evidence, the trial court could not lawfully change custody based on the custodial parent’s gender transition or marriage.


Christian v. Randall, 516 P.2d 132 (Colo. App. 1973)