JDF 1413: Open the APR Case
JDF 1413 is Colorado's petition to allocate parental responsibilities: the document lane that asks the court to establish parenting time and decision-making when you need that framework put in place. It is not the same job as answering a modify motion ( JDF 1420), drafting plan detail ( JDF 1113), or proving support facts ( JDF 1414). Before you file, separate the calendar from the authority layer and know which story you are actually opening.
| Word parents use | What the court still needs |
|---|---|
| Custody | A schedule someone could administer plus decision rules when you disagree. |
| Parenting time | Overnights, exchanges, holidays, travel, not vibes. |
Sort before filing
- Sketch the week you will defend and the decisions you need spelled out.
- Gather neutral anchors: school, care, calendars, not a message novel.
- Confirm you are opening allocation, not reacting to a filed modify motion.
- Line up financial disclosure if support is live ( JDF 1104).
Relevant Colorado law
The statutes and appellate decisions below are the ones Colorado courts actually apply here. Educational orientation only — not legal advice. Read the source before you rely on it.
Statutes
- C.R.S. § 14-10-124 — Best Interests of the Child
The court allocates parental responsibilities, including parenting time and decision-making, in accordance with the best interests of the child, giving paramount consideration to the child's safety and physical, mental, and emotional conditions and needs, and must consider all relevant factors, including the parents' wishes, the wishes of a sufficiently mature child, the child's relationships, adjustment to home, school, and community, the mental and physical health of all involved, each party's ability to encourage the child's contact with the other party, the past pattern of involvement, physical proximity, and each party's ability to put the child's needs ahead of their own. The court may restrict parenting time only if it finds, after a hearing, that parenting time would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development; it may not consider conduct that does not affect a party's relationship to the child, and may not presume a person is better able to serve the child's interests because of that person's sex. Under HB 26-1309 (effective May 27, 2026), the court must make findings by a preponderance of the evidence whether a party committed domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, or sexual assault that resulted in conception of a child; if so, the safety and well-being of the child and abused party is the primary concern, the court must impose parenting time conditions that ensure their safety, and mutual decision-making over the other party's objection is not in the child's best interests unless the court specifically finds it can occur without coercion, intimidation, retaliation, or risk of harm. A party's actions to protect the child from witnessing domestic violence or from abuse or neglect are not counted against that party on the encourage-contact factor. This findings duty arises when evidence of domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, or sexual assault resulting in conception is submitted by a party, a child and family investigator, a parental responsibilities evaluator, or the child's legal representative. If a party is absent or leaves home because of the other party's domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, or sexual assault resulting in conception, that absence is not a factor against them (§ 14-10-124(1.6)(d)), and the court must consider whether to prohibit or restrict the offending party's parenting time (§ 14-10-124(1.6)(c)). When the court orders unsupervised parenting time despite information or a child's accusation of domestic violence, child abuse, child sexual abuse, child emotional abuse, or coercive control, it must state on the record why unsupervised time is in the child's best interests (§ 14-10-124(9)).
- C.R.S. § 14-10-129 — Modification of Parenting Time
The court may make or modify a parenting time order whenever it would serve the best interests of the child, but may not restrict a parent's parenting time unless it finds the parenting time would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development. A modification that substantially changes parenting time and also changes the party with whom the child resides a majority of the time requires facts arising since (or unknown at) the prior decree showing a change in circumstances and that the modification is necessary to serve the child's best interests, and the court must retain the prior schedule unless the parties agree, the child has been integrated into the moving party's family with consent, the majority-time parent intends to relocate, or the child's present environment endangers the child and the advantage of a change outweighs the harm. A majority-time parent intending to relocate in a way that substantially changes the child's geographical ties to the other party must give written notice as soon as practicable of the intent, the new location, the reason, and a proposed revised parenting time plan; the hearing gets docket priority, and the court weighs all relevant factors, including domestic violence proven by a preponderance of the evidence whether before or after the prior decree, the section 14-10-124(1.5)(a) factors, and nine relocation factors such as the reasons for and against the move, educational opportunities, extended family, the impact of the move, and whether a reasonable parenting time schedule can be fashioned. After a motion for a substantial modification that changes the majority-time parent, no new such motion may be filed for two years unless affidavits show the child's present environment may endanger the child or the majority-time parent intends such a relocation. The rule that parenting time may not be restricted without an endangerment finding does not apply when the majority-time parent intends a relocation that substantially changes the child's geographical ties to the other party (§ 14-10-129(1)(b)(II)), and any order restricting parenting time must state the specific factual findings supporting it. A motion alleging the child is in imminent physical or emotional danger must be heard and ruled on within 14 days of filing, and any parenting time during that period must be supervised (§ 14-10-129(4)).
- C.R.S. § 14-10-131 — Modification of Custody or Decision-Making Responsibility
After a motion to modify a custody decree or decision-making allocation is filed, whether or not it was granted, no further motion may be filed within two years after disposition unless the court decides, on affidavits, that there is reason to believe continuing the prior order may endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development. The court may modify decision-making responsibility only if, based on facts that arose since the prior decree or were unknown to the court at that time, a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or the party allocated decision-making and the modification is necessary to serve the child's best interests. Even then, the court must retain the prior allocation unless the parties agree; the child has been integrated into the petitioner's family with the other party's consent and that warrants modification; a parenting time modification under section 14-10-129 warrants it; a party has consistently consented to the other party making decisions that party was to make individually or the parties were to make mutually; or retaining the allocation would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development and the harm of a change is outweighed by its advantage.
Key cases
- In re Marriage of Aldrich, 945 P.2d 1370 (Colo. 1997)
A parent seeking to modify child support bears a heavy burden to prove a substantial and continuing change in circumstances; a guidelines recalculation that changes support by less than ten percent is deemed not substantial and continuing, while one that changes it by more than ten percent creates a rebuttable presumption that modification must be granted. The court must initially apply the guidelines to the evidence of change, but where the moving parent presents no credible evidence of change (here, a claimed income drop contradicted by about $111,000 in unexplained bank deposits and a new home and car) it need not run the guideline calculation before denying the motion. The court is not required to raise modification issues the moving party did not raise, though it has discretion to do so case by case in the child's best interests. Under current section 14-10-122(1)(a), child support requires changed circumstances that are substantial and continuing; the wording 'so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unfair' that Aldrich quoted now applies only to maintenance. Child support may be modified only as to installments accruing after the motion to modify is filed, and a modification is also available when the existing order lacks a medical support provision (§ 14-10-122(1)(a)).
- In re Marriage of Chalat, 112 P.3d 47 (Colo. 2005)
A child-support obligation incorporated into the divorce decree — including an agreed obligation to pay postsecondary (college) expenses — may be modified only on a showing of substantial and continuing changed circumstances; the court keeps continuing jurisdiction, and the child-support guidelines do not by themselves reopen the order.
- In re the Marriage of Ciesluk, 113 P.3d 135 (Colo. 2005)
On a motion to relocate with a child, neither parent carries a presumption: C.R.S. § 14-10-129 (as amended) eliminates the Francis presumption favoring the majority-time parent, so both parents share equally the burden of showing what is in the child’s best interests under the § 14-10-129(2)(c) factors.
- Spahmer v. Gullette, 113 P.3d 158 (Colo. 2005)
In an initial allocation of parental responsibilities under C.R.S. § 14-10-124(1.5), a court has no authority to order a parent to live in a particular location; it must accept where each parent intends to live and allocate parental responsibilities in the child’s best interests.
Related guides
More Colorado forms
State guides (overview)
General support (not Colorado-specific)
Official sources
JDF 1413 questions
What is allocation of parental responsibilities in plain parent language?
It is the court-ordered split of parenting time and major decision-making for your child. Parenting time is the calendar. Decision-making is who holds authority for categories like education, health, and religion when you disagree. JDF 1413 is how you ask the court to establish that framework when you need orders, not when you are only answering someone else's motion.
Why do parents confuse custody labels with parenting time on this petition?
Because anger makes every word feel like a trophy. Readers still need a week map and a decision rule set. Translate "I want custody" into nights, exchanges, holidays, and who decides what.
When is JDF 1413 the wrong packet?
When you are responding to a motion to modify an existing order, use the response lane instead of behaving like you are opening a brand-new case. When you only need cleaner plan paragraphs, compare the parenting plan form. When support modification is the whole fight, compare the support-modification affidavit lane.
MyCustodyCoach is not a law firm. Court rules, fees, and form versions change by county; confirm what applies to your case with official court resources or counsel you hire.