19-1-117.5. Disputes concerning grandparent or great-grandparent visitation.
(1) Upon a verified motion by a grandparent or great-grandparent who has been granted visitation or upon the courts own motion alleging that the person with legal custody or parental responsibilities of the child as determined by a court pursuant to article 10 of title 14, C.R.S., with whom visitation has been granted is not complying with a grandparent or great-grandparent visitation order or schedule, the court shall determine from the verified motion, and response to the motion, if any, whether there has been or is likely to be a substantial and continuing noncompliance with the grandparent or great-grandparent visitation order or schedule and either:
(a) Deny the motion, if there is an inadequate allegation; or
(b) Set the matter for hearing with notice to the grandparent or great-grandparent and the person with legal custody or parental responsibilities of the child as determined by the court of the time and place of the hearing; or
(c) Require said parties to seek mediation and report back to the court on the results of the mediation within sixty days. Mediation services shall be provided in accordance with section 13-22-305, C.R.S. At the end of the mediation period, the court may approve an agreement reached by the parties or shall set the matter for hearing.
(2) After the hearing, if a court finds that the person with legal custody or parental responsibilities of the child as determined by the court has not complied with the visitation order or schedule and has violated the court order, the court, in the best interests of the child, may issue orders which may include but need not be limited to:
(a) Imposing additional terms and conditions which are consistent with the courts previous order;
(b) Modifying the previous order to meet the best interests of the child;
(c) Requiring the violator to post bond or security to insure future compliance;
(d) Requiring that makeup visitation be provided for the aggrieved grandparent or great-grandparent and child under the following conditions:
(I) That such visitation is of the same type and duration of visitation as that which was denied, including but not limited to visitation during weekends, on holidays, and on weekdays and during the summer;
(II) That such visitation is made up within one year after the noncompliance occurs;
(III) That such visitation is in the manner chosen by the aggrieved grandparent or great-grandparent if it is in the best interests of the child;
(e) Finding the person who did not comply with the visitation schedule in contempt of court and imposing a fine or jail sentence;
(f) Awarding to the aggrieved party, where appropriate, actual expenses, including attorney fees, court costs, and expenses incurred by a grandparent or great-grandparent because of the other persons failure to provide or exercise court-ordered visitation. Nothing in this section shall preclude a partys right to a separate and independent legal action in tort.
Source: L. 91: Entire section added, p. 262, 4, effective May 31. L. 98: IP(1), (1)(b), and IP(2) amended, p. 1407, 65, effective February 1, 1999. L. 2014: IP(1), (1)(b), IP(2)(d), (2)(d)(III), and (2)(f) amended,(HB 14-1362), ch. 374, p. 1788, 3, effective June 6.
Law reviews. For article, Parental Rights and Responsibilities of Grandparents and Third Parties, see 30 Colo. Law. 63 (May 2001).
A grandparent can possess visitation rights. Although the visitation rights of a grandparent are more limited than those of parents, they are still recognized by Colorado law. A limited right remains a right. Thus, a Colorado state court order of visitation rights vests a maternal grandmother with parental rights under the plain language of the federal International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (IPKCA). Further, a grandparent with joint custody or sole custody as defined by state law also has parental rights under the IPKCA. U.S. v. Alahmad, 28 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (D. Colo. 1998) (decided under law in effect prior to the 1998 amendment), affd, 211 F.3d 538 (10th Cir. 2000).