Decision-Making Disputes

This guide is based on Colorado family law information. It is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. For advice about your specific situation, consult a licensed Colorado attorney.

Your Situation

When you and your co-parent can't agree on a major decision for your child — which school they attend, whether they get a particular medical treatment, how they're raised religiously, or which activities they do — that's a decision-making dispute. These disagreements matter because, unlike the day-to-day calls each parent makes during their own time, major decisions are governed by a specific allocation written into your parenting plan. Who gets to decide, and how disagreements get broken, determines a great deal about your child's life and your relationship with your co-parent.

The stakes are real: an unresolved impasse can stall a child's enrollment, a medical choice, or a religious observance, and repeated conflict takes a toll on everyone — especially the child. The good news is that Colorado law has a clear framework for who decides what, and several tools for breaking deadlocks without an endless fight. This guide will help you understand how decision-making authority is allocated, what your rights are, how to resolve a dispute (or change the allocation if it isn't working), and what actually helps families in your position.

What the Law Requires

Colorado law organizes major decisions into categories — typically education, medical and mental health care, religious upbringing, and extracurricular activities. The court allocates decision-making responsibility for each issue based on the child's best interests, and it can assign any issue to both parents jointly, to one parent alone, or in any combination across the different categories. There is no legal preference for or against joint decision-making; the court decides what serves the child.

Your parenting plan designates the type of decision-making awarded. The parent who holds decision-making authority for a given area controls the child's upbringing in that area — education, health care, or religious training. A court can limit that authority only after a hearing and a finding that, without the limit, the child's physical health would be endangered or emotional development significantly impaired.

💡

The parent who holds decision-making authority over an area controls those major decisions, but even a sole decision-maker cannot shut the other parent out of the child's records.

A few bright-line rules are worth knowing:

• Records access. A parent who has been allocated parental responsibilities cannot be denied access to the child's medical, dental, and school records unless a court orders otherwise for good cause. This right does not depend on which parent has primary parenting time.
• Emergencies. In a medical emergency, either parent can authorize necessary treatment without violating the decision-making order or risking contempt.
• School selection. A "joint selection of schools" clause is unenforceable in Colorado. The custodial parent retains the ultimate authority to select the child's school. Separately, a clause naming one parent's home as the child's residence "for school enrollment purposes" does not, by itself, strip the other parent of an agreed right to joint decision-making on education.
• Religion. A parent who lacks religious decision-making authority still keeps a constitutional right to teach the child their own religion, absent a clear showing of substantial harm to the child. Orders restricting a parent's religious influence without that finding of harm have been held unconstitutional.
• Safety and abuse. If the court finds, by the lower "more likely than not" standard, that a party committed domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, or sexual assault that resulted in the child's conception, it is not in the child's best interests to order mutual decision-making over the other parent's (or the child's representative's) objection. The only exception is when the court makes specific findings that joint decisions can be made cooperatively and safely, without coercion, intimidation, retaliation, or risk of harm. Importantly, this does not automatically bar an offending parent from having individual or even sole decision-making — the court evaluates each case on its facts.

When joint decision-makers reach a true impasse, the court itself has authority to break the deadlock by deciding what's in the child's best interests — and it can do that without any showing of endangerment.

To change an existing decision-making allocation, the law keeps the prior allocation in place unless a specific exception applies — for example, the parties agree, the child has been integrated into one parent's family with consent, a parenting-time order was modified, one parent consistently let the other make decisions, or keeping the current allocation would endanger the child and the benefit of changing outweighs the harm. Because this is a higher bar than an ordinary parenting-time change, a court cannot quietly reallocate decision-making under general parenting-time provisions — it must apply the stricter decision-making standard and make the added findings that standard requires.

What Courts Typically Do

In practice, Colorado judges weigh four factors specific to decision-making, on top of the general best-interest factors: whether the parents can cooperate and make decisions jointly; their past pattern of involvement and whether it shows an ability to be mutual decision-makers; whether mutual decision-making will promote more frequent contact with each parent; and whether either parent has perpetrated child abuse, neglect, or spouse abuse.

Before ordering joint decision-making, courts typically want credible evidence that the parents can actually cooperate — how they've handled problems and reached agreement in the past, and how they've managed changes like child-care arrangements. Judges also look at each parent's willingness to support the child's relationship with the other parent. In practice, joint decision-making is harder to order when parents live far apart; proximity between homes is a factor courts weigh heavily, because co-parenting jointly is more workable two blocks apart than across state lines.

Courts also give custodial parents considerable latitude: good-faith decisions a custodial parent makes in carrying out their responsibilities are presumed to be in the child's best interests, absent a clear showing otherwise. And the range of outcomes is genuinely a range — the court can split authority by topic (say, medical to one parent, education jointly), grant one parent sole authority, or keep everything joint. Nothing is guaranteed; the outcome turns on your specific facts.

One limit worth knowing: a court cannot hand off its authority over parenting-time decisions to a therapist, guardian, or the other parent — those choices rest with the court. But the court can, with both parents' written consent, appoint a decision-maker or an arbitrator to resolve disputes, which is a different tool.

Step by Step: What to Do

1. Pin down what your current order actually says. Find your parenting plan and read exactly how decision-making is allocated for each category — education, medical, religious, extracurricular, and "other" major decisions. Identify whether the disputed issue is yours alone to decide, the other parent's, or joint.

2. If it's joint, follow your plan's dispute-resolution procedure first. Most plans require you to attempt the resolution step written into the plan — often mediation or a parenting coordinator — before going to court. Courts and mediators generally look favorably on parents who try to resolve things before filing.

3. Document your communication. Keep a record of what you proposed, how the other parent responded, and any attempts to reach agreement. If you later file, you'll be asked whether you discussed the requested change with the other parent and what happened.

4. Consider a neutral decision-maker — but only by mutual consent. If you both agree in writing, the court can appoint a qualified decision-maker (sometimes the same person as a parenting coordinator) with binding authority to resolve specific disputes you list. The appointment can't last longer than two years unless you both agree to extend it, and you both pay the fees as the order apportions them. Once appointed, the decision-maker must disclose any relationships, and you have seven days to object.

5. If you need the court to decide, file the appropriate motion. Whether you're asking the court to break a joint impasse, or to change the decision-making allocation itself, this is done through a court filing — and the other parent then has a set period to respond in writing. The guided wizard on this site will prepare and pre-fill the correct Colorado paperwork for your situation, including whether you're filing a contested motion or a stipulation you've both agreed to.

6. Expect the court to review and route the case. After a motion to change decision-making is filed, the court reviews it within a set period and may grant it, deny it, set a hearing, or order mediation — there's no automatic outcome.

7. Understand the de novo option if a decision-maker rules against you. A decision-maker's decision must be in writing, dated, signed, filed, and mailed, and it takes effect immediately. If you disagree, you can ask the court to review it through a full evidentiary hearing — but you must file that request within 35 days, and the court has discretion whether to grant the hearing. Note that a decision-maker generally can't be compelled to testify about their decisions, and trying to force that can expose you to their attorney fees.

What Research Shows Can Help

The items here focus mostly on law and court practice rather than social-science research, so the research-based guidance available is limited. What the legal framework itself reflects — and what the legislature has expressly declared — is that it's in everyone's best interests for parents to resolve post-dissolution disputes amicably and fairly, and that a core purpose of Colorado's family law is to reduce the harm the dissolution process causes to children and parent-child relationships.

💡

Building clear communication methods and a workable dispute-resolution step into your plan before conflict arises is the single most practical thing you can do to keep future disagreements out of court.

Practically, that means your plan should set out how you and your co-parent communicate about the child (methods and frequency), require you to share contact information for all the child's health care providers, and keep each other updated on address and phone changes. Building in flexibility — for example, allowing religious observances to adjust exchange times around holidays — heads off predictable conflict before it starts.

What to Do Today

• Re-read your parenting plan and highlight exactly who holds decision-making authority for the issue in dispute, and what the plan's dispute-resolution step requires.
• Write down the decision you need made, your proposal, and what you've already tried to work it out with the other parent — you'll need this record whether you mediate or file.
• Request the child's records (medical, dental, or school) if you've been denied them — you have a statutory right to access as a parent with allocated responsibilities, absent a court order for good cause.
• Start the guided wizard if you've decided you need to file a motion or a stipulation; it will prepare and pre-fill the correct forms for your situation.
• If there's any safety concern involving domestic violence or abuse, flag it now — it directly affects whether joint decision-making can even be ordered, and you can seek interim decision-making terms through a protection order.

Related Issues to Be Aware Of

• Creating the parenting plan: Because decision-making authority lives inside your parenting plan, getting the plan right — including a clear, workable dispute-resolution clause and a thoughtful split of authority by category — is the best protection against future deadlocks. Blank or vague allocation forces the court to decide for you.

• High-conflict communication: Many decision-making disputes are really communication breakdowns. Your plan can and should specify how you communicate about the child, and the standard rules already require sharing health-provider contacts and keeping addresses current — watch for whether both of you are actually meeting those obligations, since failures can matter in enforcement or modification.

• School attendance or stability: Even where education decisions are shared, your plan must designate one parent's address as the child's residence for school-enrollment purposes — a technical designation that affects which district the child attends but does not, on its own, override a joint right to decide educational matters. Remember, too, that the custodial parent keeps ultimate authority to select the school.

• Expert witnesses and evaluators: If a dispute is contested, the court can appoint a neutral Child and Family Investigator to look into the child's best interests and make recommendations — though the court weighs the full report and isn't bound by it. After an abuse finding, the court can also order the offending party to undergo a domestic violence evaluation.

• Parenting coordinators: A parenting coordinator can help you implement the plan and resolve disputes, and the same person often serves as decision-maker. But note two limits: without your agreement, the court must make specific findings before appointing one, and after an abuse finding the court cannot appoint a coordinator solely to force mutual decision-making to work.