Arguments that land like a sack of bricks in Colorado family law courts

I do a lot of consultations with folks facing a difficult family law case. And over the years, I've heard some of the same arguments that have some intuitive merit but, in the context of a family law case, prove time and again to be weak. There are, of course, nuances to any situation, but it is worth knowing that the legal system and your attorney may respond more negatively to these kinds of arguments than you expect.

"I've always been the primary parent, and I've made all the decisions so far, so I should have sole parenting time and decision-making!"

First of all, the basis of this argument may be true: you may have been the primary parent and decision-maker. Or it may not be. You would be surprised how many couples do not agree on who was the primary parent during the relationship.

But fundamentally, things change after a divorce. Someone who was the primary parent needs to loosen the reins a little bit, and someone who was not the primary parent will need to step up.

And if neither can do that, there are many tools available for couples to resolve issues in the future, and parents can modify their parenting plans.

"I've always provided for the family, so I should get a greater share of the marital estate!"

In many cases, this is the other side of the coin from the first statement. Especially if one parent has been a stay-at-home parent, there is an understandable feeling of ownership of the material things in the marital estate.

But this is not how courts review this. True, financial contributions to the marriage are a factor in the division of the estate, but as marriages get longer, it becomes harder to disaggregate the decisions individuals made and decisions they made in the context of their relationship. So you should not expect a "dollar in / dollar out" division of the marital estate.

"My soon to be ex wants the divorce, but I don't, so I should get more for that / I shouldn't have to pay fees as a result."

What's difficult about this argument is that it's intuitively reasonable. Why should a person resisting a divorce - especially if it's someone fighting for a relationship that they want to save - have to give up so much?

The answer is: this is a no-fault state, and either party has the right to end the marriage. So even if one person wishes that were not the case, you can't get more out of the estate by opposing the divorce itself.

"My ex relies on family to take care of the kids, so they should be with me more"

Yes, parenting time ensures that the children have time with each parent. But that is not exclusively what it is for. There is no expectation that children only spend time with the parent. That is not how things work with couples who are together: they make decisions all the time about seeing family and friends. And it is good for children to have a wide circle of safe grown-ups who care about them and take care of them.

It is also normal, especially after a divorce, for parents to need more help. So unless there are specific safety concerns about a family caregiver, you are unlikely to increase your parenting time or limit the children's time with family due to conflicts with extended family.

"We have equal parenting time, so I shouldn't need to pay child support"

This just is not how the formula works in Colorado. Again, sometimes this makes intuitive sense, but it goes against the theory of child support in Colorado and holds no weight in a courtroom.

Find a Colorado family law attorney to help today

If you have questions about a Colorado divorce, custody, or family law case, make sure you contact a lawyer who can help ensure you make the best arguments available.