Background
C.H. and the child’s mother began a relationship in 2009 and had a commitment ceremony in Oregon in 2011 or 2012. The mother later had a relationship with J.L., resulting in the child’s birth. Although C.H. was present at birth and listed on the birth certificate, he made clear to the child that he was not the biological father. C.H. and the mother raised the child together across multiple states before settling in Colorado.
In 2024, the mother passed away. Shortly thereafter, C.H. was arrested after allowing the child to ride on top of his vehicle while driving intoxicated in a parking lot. A protection order prohibited contact between C.H. and the child, and the child was placed with J.L.’s parents. When those relatives could no longer provide care in 2025, the La Plata Department of Human Services filed a dependency petition and sought a determination of paternity, naming both C.H. and J.L. as respondents.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s judgment that C.H. was not entitled to any legal presumption of parentage. The court rejected C.H.’s argument that he and the mother were common law married. Examining the record, the court found that C.H. and the mother neither agreed to be married nor held themselves out as such—they did not commingle assets, maintained separate financial relationships, and the mother listed herself as single on housing and Medicaid applications and filed taxes as single. Most significantly, the court found that both parties deliberately acted to avoid being perceived as married to protect their financial benefits.
Because no common law marriage existed, C.H. could not establish the marriage presumption (required marriage before the child’s birth) or the birth certificate presumption (required marriage after the child’s birth with consent to being named on the certificate). The court also concluded that C.H. had not preserved any claim to the holding out presumption by failing to raise it before the juvenile court. With no presumption applicable to C.H., the biological presumption favoring J.L. controlled, and no competing presumptions required reconciliation.
Key Takeaways
- Under Colorado’s Uniform Parentage Act, a non-biological parent must establish a legal presumption of parentage; merely raising a child does not create parental rights without a qualifying presumption or legal adoption.
- The common law marriage presumption requires clear evidence of mutual intent to be married and conduct manifesting that agreement; listing oneself as single for government benefits negates the required intent.
- A party must preserve arguments about specific presumptions before the trial court; raising one presumption does not preserve arguments about different presumptions.
- When no presumptions of parentage apply to a claimant, the biological presumption controls, and the biological parent becomes the legal parent by default.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the high bar for non-biological parents seeking legal recognition in Colorado dependency proceedings. Despite C.H.’s years of care and presence on the birth certificate, the court’s strict application of the UPA presumptions framework meant he had no legal basis for claiming parentage. The decision emphasizes that the statutory presumptions are gatekeepers to parenthood—without satisfying one, even a long-term parental relationship does not confer legal status or rights.
The case also illustrates a practical problem for unmarried couples where one partner raises another’s child: if the couple never marries (or cannot prove a common law marriage), the non-biological partner has no presumption and would need to pursue adoption to secure legal parental rights. C.H.’s subsequent arrest and protection order further complicated his position, showing how changed circumstances can affect dependency outcomes.