## Facts

- Mother had an infant son (A.F.) whose biological father was not involved.
- When A.F. was about three months old, Mother moved in with Hill; the next year they had a daughter (A.C.H.).
- The parties lived together as a family for about three years; after separating, they continued sharing parenting time for both children for about six years.
- Mother sought to relocate to Texas and petitioned to allocate parental responsibilities for A.C.H. only.
- Hill petitioned to be recognized as A.F.’s psychological parent and sought allocation of parental responsibilities and child support, requesting the children primarily reside with him.
- The parties stipulated that Hill was A.F.’s psychological parent, Mother could relocate with both children, and parental responsibilities would be allocated the same way for both children.
- The trial court allocated parental responsibilities for both children but denied Mother’s request for child support for A.F., reasoning it lacked authority absent a legal parent–child relationship or another statutory basis.

## Issues

1. Whether a psychological parent awarded parental responsibilities for a nonbiological child under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-123(1)(b), (c) may be ordered to pay child support under § 14-10-115.
2. Whether the trial court erred by requiring a biological or adoptive parent–child relationship (or another specific circumstance) as a prerequisite to imposing a child support obligation.

## Decision

- The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the order denying child support for A.F.
- The court held that a psychological parent who successfully seeks and receives parental responsibilities stands in the same position as a legal parent for child support purposes.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the appropriate child support amount.

## Legal Principles

- Colorado’s allocation-of-parental-responsibilities statute grants standing to a psychological parent to seek parenting time and decision-making authority based on an established parent-like relationship.
- The child-support statute and the parental-responsibilities statute must be construed together to avoid a gap that would recognize parental rights without accompanying financial obligations.
- A person who affirmatively obtains court-ordered parental responsibilities as a psychological parent may be treated as a “parent” for purposes of child support.
- The best interests of the child support imposing both the benefits and burdens of parenthood on a court-recognized psychological parent.

## Conclusion

A psychological parent who obtains court-ordered parental responsibilities for a nonbiological child may be ordered to pay child support, and a trial court errs when it denies support solely because no biological or adoptive parent–child relationship exists.


In re Parental Responsibilities of A.C.H. & A.F., 440 P.3d 1266 (Colo. App. 2019)