## Facts

- Michelle A. Ciesluk (mother) and Christopher J. Ciesluk (father) divorced in 2002 and shared joint parental responsibility for their child, Connor (born 1997).
- The decree made mother the primary residential parent for school and legal residency; father had parenting time on two weekends and two weekday evenings per month.
- In 2003, mother lost her job due to a workforce reduction and pursued comparable employment in Colorado and Arizona, where her extended family lived.
- A prospective employer in Arizona required mother to commit to relocating before extending an offer.
- Mother moved to modify parenting time under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129 to relocate with Connor to Arizona and proposed a long-distance schedule for father (holiday/spring-break/summer time plus additional visits).
- Father opposed relocation; a court-appointed special advocate recommended Connor remain in Colorado because relocation would harm Connor’s relationship with father.
- The trial court denied the relocation request, emphasizing the benefit of Connor remaining near both parents and focusing on potential harm to father-child contact.
- The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning the 2001 amendments eliminated any presumption favoring the majority-time parent.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the trial court misapplied § 14-10-129 by effectively favoring the non-relocating parent and burdening mother’s right to travel.

## Issues

1. Whether Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129 (as amended in 2001) creates a presumption favoring either the relocating or non-relocating parent in relocation disputes, or instead places an equal burden on both parents to show the child’s best interests.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by applying § 14-10-129 in a manner that effectively presumed the child should remain in Colorado and required mother to satisfy an unequal, heightened showing.

## Decision

- Reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings.
- Held the 2001 amendments to § 14-10-129 eliminated the prior relocation framework, including any presumption favoring the majority-time parent seeking to relocate.
- Held both parents share equally the burden of demonstrating what arrangement serves the child’s best interests.
- Concluded the trial court abused its discretion by effectively creating a presumption in favor of father and by not adequately applying the full statutory best-interests analysis.

## Legal Principles

- After the 2001 amendments to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129, there is no presumption for or against parental relocation in parenting-time disputes.
- Both parents bear an equal burden to demonstrate what parenting-time arrangement is in the child’s best interests.
- The trial court must consider all relevant statutory factors in § 14-10-129(2)(c), including (as applicable) the reasons for relocation or opposition, the child’s relationships, and the feasibility of maintaining meaningful parent-child relationships through adjusted schedules.
- A court abuses its discretion by misapplying the governing statute or by substituting a de facto presumption (such as a general preference for geographic proximity) for the required factor-based best-interests determination.
- An approach that effectively forces a relocating parent to meet a heightened standard may improperly burden the parent’s constitutional right to travel, even though the dispositive inquiry remains the child’s best interests.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court required relocation disputes to be decided under § 14-10-129 through a neutral, factor-based best-interests analysis with equal burdens on both parents, and it ordered a remand because the trial court’s reasoning functioned as an improper presumption favoring the non-relocating parent.


In re Marriage of Ciesluk, 113 P.3d 135 (Colo. 2005)