In re A.C.H.
Colorado Court of Appeals
440 P.3d 1266 (2019)

- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
Anastasia Magana (plaintiff) had an infant son, A.F., whose father was not a part of his life. When A.F. was three months old, Anastasia moved in with her boyfriend, Justin Lee Hill (defendant). The following year, Anastasia and Justin had a daughter, A.C.H. Anastasia and Justin lived as a family with the two children for three years, until Anastasia and Justin ended their romantic relationship. After the breakup, Anastasia and Justin shared parenting time for both kids for around six years until Anastasia decided to relocate to Texas. Anastasia filed a petition asking a district court to allocate parental responsibilities of A.C.H., Justin’s biological daughter, but not of A.F. Justin did not want Anastasia to move out of state with the children. Justin filed a petition averring that he was A.F.’s psychological parent and asking a district court to allocate both parental responsibilities and child support to him. Justin asked the court to allow the children to reside primarily with him. Later, Anastasia and Justin reached a stipulation that recognized Justin as a psychological parent, allowed Anastasia to relocate with the children, and determined that the court should make the same allocation of parental responsibilities for both children. After a hearing, the district court determined that it could not order Justin to pay child support without a legal parent-child relationship or some other circumstance that was not applicable. Anastasia appealed, arguing that Justin was a psychological parent on the same footing as she was as A.F.’s biological parent, and he should have to pay child support.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Richman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.