Marriage of McConnell

25CA0856 Marriage of McConnell 03-26-2026

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 25CA0856
Ouray County District Court No. 16DR30001
Honorable D. Cory Jackson, Judge

In re the Marriage of

Sarah Lou Smedsrud,

Appellee,

and

Porter Williams McConnell,

Appellant.

ORDER AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART,
AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Division VII
Opinion by JUDGE JOHNSON
Pawar and Gomez, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced March 26, 2026

Hogan Omidi, P.C., Erin A. Penrod, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee

Price Family Law, LLC, Trista Price, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant
¶1 In this post-dissolution of marriage proceeding, Porter

Williams McConnell (father) appeals the district court’s order

denying his relocation motion and modifying child support. We

affirm the district court’s order denying father’s request to relocate

the children, but we reverse the order to the extent that it did not

determine a new parenting time plan and modified child support

based on the parents’ current equal parenting time schedule. We

remand the case for the court to enter a parenting time order that

can be exercised with father in Kentucky and mother in Colorado

and to enter a new child support order based on the updated

parenting time allocation.

I. Background

¶2 Father and Sarah Lou Smedsrud (mother) share two children,

S.M. and P.L.M. In 2017, the court dissolved the parties’ marriage

and adopted their stipulated parenting plan. Under the plan, the

parents shared equal parenting time on a week-on/week-off

schedule, and joint decision-making responsibility.

¶3 In November 2023, father sought an order allowing him to

relocate with the children to Kentucky and requested the court

modify decision-making responsibility and child support. Mother

1
opposed relocation. The court appointed a child and family

investigator (CFI) to make recommendations concerning relocation.

¶4 The court held a hearing over a day and a half. The court

found, and father testified, that he had moved to Kentucky roughly

a year before the hearing. Though he had been traveling back and

forth to exercise parenting time, he testified and argued at the

hearing that he could not continue to do so. His counsel noted

during closing argument that, given the distance between the

parties, “obviously something has to change.”

¶5 The parties and the CFI testified about an incident that

occurred in 2017 involving the children and their half-sister, K.C.,

who is not at issue in this case. The court found, “[K.C.] was

discovered to have been engaging in sexualized behavior with the

[children] when all were very young.” The court also heard

testimony about father’s belief that, in 2020, K.C. had applied

diaper cream to P.L.M.’s “bottom.” For her part, mother disputed

that the 2020 incident occurred.

¶6 At the time of the hearing on father’s motion to relocate, a no-

contact order prohibiting contact between the children and K.C.

2
was in effect; at that point, P.L.M. was ten years old, S.M. was

eleven, and K.C. was fifteen.

¶7 Following the hearing, the court issued a written order

denying the relocation request but nonetheless modifying child

support based on changes in the parties’ incomes. The court did

not modify parenting time, though father had moved to Kentucky.

II. Post-Decree Relocation

¶8 Father contends that the court erred in its ruling denying

relocation for multiple reasons. He argues that the court

misapplied the law, made insufficient findings, issued an arbitrary

decision, and failed to issue a new parenting time plan. We agree

with father that the court erred by not entering a new parenting

time schedule, but we reject his remaining contentions.

A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

¶9 As with other parenting time matters, the district court has

discretion over this issue. See In re Marriage of Hatton, 160 P.3d

326, 330 (Colo. App. 2007). We therefore will not disturb a

relocation decision absent an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of

Ciesluk, 113 P.3d 135, 148 (Colo. 2005). A district court abuses its

discretion when its decision is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable,

3
or unfair. In re Marriage of Gibbs, 2019 COA 104, ¶ 8. But we

review de novo whether a district court applied the proper legal

standard. See In re Marriage of Morgan, 2018 COA 116M, ¶ 7.

¶ 10 Section 14-10-129(2)(c), C.R.S. 2025, establishes the

procedure that the court must follow in deciding a motion to

relocate by a parent with majority or equal parenting time. See

Ciesluk, 113 P.3d at 140-42; In re Marriage of DeZalia, 151 P.3d

647, 650 (Colo. App. 2006). The court must consider the best

interest factors in section 14-10-124(1.5)(a), C.R.S. 2025, and

the relocation factors in section 14-10-129(2)(c) in evaluating the

child’s best interests as well as the parents’ interests relative to the

requested relocation. See Ciesluk, 113 P.3d at 140. The court

must disclose the reasons for its decision and make specific

findings with respect to the relevant statutory factors. Id. at 148,

150.

¶ 11 Each parent has the burden to persuade the court that

the relocation would be in, or contrary to, the child’s best

interests. Id. at 148. If the court decides it is not in the best

interests of the child to relocate and the parent who sought

4
relocation still wishes to relocate, “a new parenting time plan will be

necessary.” Id.

B. The District Court’s Ruling

¶ 12 The court noted it was required to consider the factors in

section 14-10-129(2)(c) and made the following pertinent findings:

• Father had already moved to Kentucky and wished for the

children to join him, believing this area presented more

opportunities for them. See §§ 14-10-124(1.5)(a)(I), 14-10-

129(2)(c)(I).

• Mother remained in Colorado and sought to “preserve the

status quo.” See §§ 14-10-124(1.5)(a)(I), 14-10-129(2)(c)(II).

• Both parents had a close connection with the children and

were engaged in quality family time with them. See §§ 14-10-

124(1.5)(a)(III), 14-10-129(2)(c)(III).

• The Kentucky schools presented better educational and

extracurricular opportunities. See § 14-10-129(2)(c)(IV).

• Mother had extended family near her in Colorado. Father had

some extended family about three to four hours from his

Kentucky home. See id. at (2)(c)(V).

5
• There was no primary caregiver because the parents equally

shared parenting time. See id. at (2)(c)(VI).

• Relocation would likely be disruptive for the children and

would distance them from mother’s extended family and other

“supports,” including their therapist, with whom they were

doing well. See id. at (2)(c)(VII).

• Both parents were fit and able to adequately address regular

parenting issues, as well as “extraordinary and difficult issues

that arise.” See id. at (2)(c)(IX).

• To the extent that S.M. struggled with “serious emotional

difficulties,” his current mental health caregivers were

adequately addressing the need, and relocation would disrupt

his care. See id.

¶ 13 The court then “[t]urn[ed] to the general statutory best-interest

factors” it had not yet addressed and made additional findings

concerning the section 14-10-124(1.5)(a) factors:

• The children supported relocation but were unable to maturely

and independently express those wishes. See § 14-10-

124(1.5)(a)(II).

6
• The children were doing well in school and were adjusted to

their school, home, community, and routines in Colorado. See

id. at (1.5)(a)(IV).

• No party had any health issue that should affect parenting

time. See id. at (1.5)(a)(V).

• Both parties were able to put the children’s needs ahead of

their own. See id. at (1.5)(a)(XI).

¶ 14 The court determined that factors like “the children’s current

adjustment, negative likely impacts of relocation and distance from

current extended family and supports” weighed heavier than the

“limited benefit to improved access to educational and

extracurricular activities in Kentucky.” Accordingly, it denied the

relocation request.

¶ 15 The record supports the court’s findings. The children had

lived in their Colorado community and attended schools there for

their entire lives. The children saw their nearby family every week

of mother’s parenting time, and mother testified that they “adore”

their toddler half-sibling, whom they resided with. The children

also participated in various activities in their community, such as

playing soccer, riding horses, and going fishing. Mother stated she

7
thought the children were happy with their therapist and had been

seeing her for six months as of the time of the hearing.

¶ 16 While father argued that mother had not adequately addressed

past issues, like the incident involving K.C., the CFI opined that

that such claims by father were unfounded. The court found the

CFI’s opinion persuasive and determined that both parents were

adequately addressing the children’s needs. See id. The court also

noted that the incident involving K.C. had occurred nearly eight

years prior.

C. The District Court Correctly Applied the Law When It Denied
Relocation

¶ 17 As outlined, the court considered and made findings

concerning the section 14-10-129(2)(c) factors and the best interest

factors. See § 14-10-124(1.5)(a)(II), (IV), (V), (XI). The court

therefore correctly applied the relevant legal standard. See § 14-10-

129(2)(c); Ciesluk, 113 P.3d at 150.

¶ 18 To the extent that father asserts that the court was required to

state even more explicitly that it considered the section 14-10-

124(1.5)(a) factors, we disagree. The court’s findings are sufficient

such that we can discern the basis of its ruling. See In re Marriage

8
of Rozzi, 190 P.3d 815, 822 (Colo. App. 2008); see also People in

Interest of A.M.K., 68 P.3d 563, 566 (Colo. App. 2003) (the district

court need not make specific findings on every factor listed in the

statute so long as there is some indication in the record that it

considered the pertinent factors).1

¶ 19 Father also argues, for the first time on appeal, that the court

was required to apply section 14-10-127.5(3)(a), (3)(b), and (3.5),

C.R.S. 2025, which relates to children exposed to domestic violence

or child abuse, in deciding relocation. Father now theorizes that

K.C. was an “accused party” of “child sexual assault” for purposes

of the section, which in turn required the court to engage in various

considerations under these subsections. See § 14-10-127.5(3)(a)

(listing mandatory considerations for the court in Title 14

proceedings concerning the allocation of parental responsibilities

(APR) in which, as relevant here, “a claim of . . . child sexual abuse,

1 Father appears to imply that the district court did not follow In re

Marriage of Ciesluk, 113 P.3d 135, 149 (Colo. 2005), because the
court required him to show how the move would “enhance” the
children’s situation. We do not address this issue because father
has not developed the argument. See Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n v.
Lo Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34, ¶ 41 n.12 (an appellate court
does not consider undeveloped and unsupported arguments), aff’d,
2021 CO 56.

9
has been made to the court, or the court has reason to believe that

a party has committed . . . child sexual abuse”) (emphasis added);

(3)(b) (outlining actions a court shall not take in such proceedings);

(3.5) (providing that, in such proceedings, the court “shall give

strong consideration to a child’s stated preference” if it is consistent

with the paramount consideration given to their safety and needs).

¶ 20 As relevant here, the statute defines “accused party” as,

“unless the context otherwise requires[,] . . . a parent in a case to

determine parental responsibilities who has been accused

of . . . child sexual abuse.” § 14-10-127.5(2)(a) (emphasis added).

Father argues that the context of the subsections described above

required the court to treat K.C. as an “accused party” and apply

those subsections.

¶ 21 We are not convinced. Given the particular circumstances of

both this case and father’s argument — namely, the fact that K.C.

is a minor child, not a parent of the children, and not a party to the

case — we conclude that father had to alert the district court to his

argument that section 14-10-127.5(3)(a), (3)(b), and (3.5) applied to

this case to preserve it for review. See § 14-10-123(1), C.R.S. 2025

(outlining who may commence an APR proceeding); see also People

10
in Interest of S.A., 2022 CO 27, ¶ 30 (“Without personal jurisdiction

over an individual, a court is powerless and cannot issue legally

binding and enforceable orders.”); cf. § 14-10-127.5(3)(b)(I) (the

court shall not “[r]emove a child from a protective party solely to

improve a deficient relationship with an accused party”).

¶ 22 We are not persuaded by father that preservation was not

required because his argument “ar[ose]” from the court’s relocation

order or findings therein, where the court generally addressed

relocation, without addressing the subsections that he now urges

apply. Therefore, we do not address this issue. See Melat,

Pressman & Higbie, L.L.P. v. Hannon Law Firm, L.L.C., 2012 CO 61,

¶ 18 (“[I]ssues not raised in or decided by a lower court will not be

addressed for the first time on appeal.”); Valentine v. Mountain

States Mut. Cas. Co., 252 P.3d 1182, 1188 n.4 (Colo. App. 2011)

(“We review only the specific arguments a party pursued before the

district court.”).

¶ 23 Accordingly, the court properly applied the legal standard.

See Morgan, ¶ 7.

11
D. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying
Relocation

¶ 24 Father also argues that the district court made insufficient

findings. As noted, the court made sufficient findings for review,

and father’s argument is essentially a request for us to reweigh the

evidence in his favor. In support, father emphasizes several aspects

of the testimony at the hearing, such as the size of his home relative

to mother’s.

¶ 25 We decline this invitation to reweigh the evidence and

substitute our judgment for that of the district court. See In re

Marriage of Thorburn, 2022 COA 80, ¶ 49 (the weight, probative

force, and sufficiency of the evidence, and the inferences and

conclusions drawn therefrom, are matters within the sole discretion

of the district court); In re Marriage of Nelson, 2012 COA 205, ¶ 35

(when reviewing for an abuse of discretion, an appellate court will

not substitute its judgment for that of the district court even if

evidence in the record could have supported a different result); cf. In

re Marriage of Udis, 780 P.2d 499, 504 (Colo. 1989) (an appellate

court may presume that the district court considered all the

12
evidence presented, even if the order does not expressly recite such

evidence).

¶ 26 We further reject father’s argument that the court

“disregarded” (1) the no-contact order in place between K.C. and the

children and (2) an unsigned safety plan, drafted in 2020 and

admitted at the hearing, which outlined parameters for contact

between the children and K.C. The no-contact order remained in

effect at the time of the hearing, making the safety plan irrelevant.

And, while the court did not explicitly address the no-contact order,

this was likely, in part, due to the fact that the court denied

relocation and did not modify the parenting time orders. Again, the

no-contact remained in effect. Notably, K.C. also “primarily live[d]

away from the [children]” with her father in Montrose, Colorado.

¶ 27 We also disagree with father that the court was required to

make findings resolving his argument that the CFI improperly

applied the endangerment standard. See § 14-10-129(1.5)(a). To be

sure, the CFI initially testified that she believed the endangerment

standard had to be met; however, she then provided clarification,

stating, “I knew . . . that the request wasn’t to restrict parenting

time. So I may have misapplied that . . . . I know that the case

13
wasn’t about endangerment.” Regardless of any confusion in her

testimony, in her admitted report, the CFI specifically analyzed both

the relocation and the best interests of the child factors, and the

report revealed no indication that the CFI had made

recommendations based off of the endangerment standard.

Regardless, the court independently assessed the evidence and

applied the statutory factors to reach its determination that

relocation was not in the children’s best interests. See Thorburn, ¶

49; Ciesluk, 113 P.3d at 150.2

¶ 28 Finally, to the extent that father argues that the court erred by

finding that S.M. had multiple “mental health caregivers,” as

opposed to a singular caregiver, he concedes that the child was

seeing a therapist at the time of the hearing and demonstrates no

harm based on the court pluralizing “caregiver.” See C.R.C.P. 61.

2 We do not address father’s unpreserved arguments that (1) the

court failed to find that the CFI completed domestic violence and
child abuse training required under section 14-10-127.5(5)(a); and
(2) the CFI’s opinion that that S.M. experienced “serious emotional
difficulties,” was an improper “diagnos[is].” See Melat, ¶ 18.

14
E. The District Court Erred by Not Modifying Parenting Time
Orders

¶ 29 We next address father’s contention that the district court

erred by not issuing a new parenting time plan, given his move to

Kentucky. We agree.

¶ 30 As noted, our supreme court in Ciesluk stated that, in cases

where the relocation request is denied but the parent still desires to

relocate, “a new parenting time plan will be necessary.” 113 P.3d at

148; see also § 14-10-124(1.5)(a)(VIII) (requiring the court to

consider “[t]he physical proximity of the parties to each other as

this relates to the practical considerations of parenting time”).

¶ 31 At the time of the hearing, father had already moved to

Kentucky and had resided there for about a year. We conclude that

the court’s failure to enter a new parenting time order, given

father’s relocation, was error. See Ciesluk, 113 P.3d at 148; § 14-

10-124(1.5)(a)(VIII).

¶ 32 We reject mother’s assertion that Ciesluk does not require a

new parenting time plan given the record in this case. She relies on

the fact that father, during the pendency of the motion, (1)

continually traveled back and forth to exercise his week-on/week-

15
off parenting time and (2) maintained access to a home that his

former employer owned in Colorado. But father testified that

traveling back and forth was “very draining physically and

financially” and that he could not continue to do so. While his

access to his former employer’s home continued during the

pendency of the motion, he testified that the move to Kentucky was

permanent. Specifically, he stated that he had put “pretty much all

[his] eggs in that basket,” all his money was “tied up” in the

Kentucky house, all his personal belongings were there, and

“about” all he had left in the Colorado home were air mattresses.

See Ciesluk, 113 P.3d at 148; cf. Spahmer v. Gullette, 113 P.3d 158,

164 (Colo. 2005) (in the initial APR, the district court must “accept

the location in which each party intends to live”). And, while the

court noted that father had been “traveling substantially” to

continue to exercise his parenting time, it did not make any

findings explaining why it did not modify parenting time given the

distance between the parties.

¶ 33 Because the court erred by not issuing a new parenting time

plan that could be exercised with father in Kentucky, we remand

the case for the court to issue a new parenting time order.

16
III. Remaining Contentions and Remand Instructions

¶ 34 Father also argues that the court erred with respect to child

support for multiple reasons, including by apparently challenging

the court’s income findings.

¶ 35 The order modifying child support was based on the parents’

sharing an equal number of overnights. Thus, while there was

evidence admitted at the hearing that supported the court’s income

findings, the court must redetermine child support based the new

parenting time orders entered on remand. Therefore, we reverse the

court’s ruling modifying child support and do not address any

further child support arguments.

¶ 36 We remand the case for the court to issue a new parenting

time plan that can be exercised with father living in Kentucky,

based on the best interests of the children at the time of the remand

proceedings. See In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning M.W.,

2012 COA 162, ¶ 27. Because there has been a lengthy passage of

time since the relocation hearing, while the court may rely on the

existing record, it must also provide the parties with an opportunity

to present evidence concerning the children’s current

circumstances. See id.

17
¶ 37 To the extent that the children’s circumstances at the time of

the remand proceedings involve a no-contact order concerning K.C.,

the court should — exercising its discretion — take the order into

consideration when determining parenting time. See § 14-10-

124(1.5)(a)(III) (the court shall consider all relevant factors,

including the interaction of the child with his or her siblings). If a

no-contact order is no longer in effect at the time of the court’s

ruling, however, the court should consider the safety of the children

during any parenting time, including overnights. See § 14-10-

124(1.5)(a) (“The court . . . may make provisions for parenting time

that the court finds are in the best interests of the child, with the

child’s safety always paramount . . . .”).

¶ 38 We also direct the court on remand to issue a new child

support order based on its new allocation of parenting time.

¶ 39 The existing parenting time order and support order shall

remain in effect pending the new orders on remand. See M.W., ¶

27.3

3 Father does not challenge the court’s denial of his motion to

modify decision-making in the relocation order, and therefore, we
do not disturb the court’s denial of his request.

18
IV. Appellate Attorney Fees

¶ 40 Mother requests attorney fees under section 14-10-119, based

on the discrepancies in the parties’ incomes. Because the district

court is better positioned to determine the parties’ current relative

financial circumstances, we remand her request to the district

court. See C.A.R. 39.1; In re Marriage of Alvis, 2019 COA 97, ¶ 30.

V. Conclusion

¶ 41 The district court’s order denying father’s relocation motion is

affirmed in part and reversed in part. We reverse only the portions

of the order that (1) failed to issue a new parenting time plan and

(2) modified child support, and we remand the case to the district

court for it to consider those two issues consistent with this

opinion.

JUDGE PAWAR and JUDGE GOMEZ concur.

19