Parental Resp Conc LPF

── Parental Resp Conc LPF ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General 25CA1196 Parental Resp Conc LPF 05-28-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 25CA1196 Jefferson County District Court No. 16DR234 Honorable Russell Klein, Judge In re the Parental Responsibilities Concerning L.P.F., a Child, and Concerning Renee Fisher, Appellee, and Henry Lu, Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Division III Opinion by JUDGE DUNN Harris and Moultrie, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 28, 2026 Renee Fisher, Pro Se Thomas Law Group, P.C., Sergei B. Thomas, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 In this post-permanent orders proceeding involving Henry Lu (father) and Renee Christine Fisher (mother), father appeals the district court’s adoption of the magistrate’s order modifying parenting time and decision-making. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings. I. Background ¶2 In 2016, the district court entered permanent orders allocating parental responsibilities for the parties’ child who was then almost two years old. The court implemented a 50/50 parenting time schedule and allocated the parties joint decision-making, except for the area of religion, which was allocated to mother. ¶3 In July 2024, father moved to modify parenting time and decision-making. Father proposed that he become the majority time parent during the school year and requested sole decision- making responsibility as to the child’s education. In support, father cited ongoing disagreements between the parties concerning the child’s school enrollment and attendance. Father also sought clarification about the child’s extracurricular activities, which he alleged had similarly been a source of friction. 1 ¶4 After a hearing on the motion, the magistrate maintained a 50/50 parenting time allocation but implemented a week-on, week- off parenting time schedule. The magistrate awarded father sole decision-making responsibility as to the child’s education, but also ordered that starting in sixth grade, the child must attend school in Jefferson County at a school of father’s choice, subject to certain distance requirements between the parties’ two homes. Based on a finding that “joint decision-making is endangering the child,” the magistrate allocated all other decision-making responsibility to mother. ¶5 The magistrate also modified the parties’ communication protocols and ordered the child to be re-enrolled in gymnastics and attend therapy. ¶6 After father petitioned for review, the district court adopted the magistrate’s order. II. Appellate Review of District Court Orders ¶7 Our review of a district court’s order adopting a magistrate’s decision is effectively a second layer of appellate review. In re Marriage of Sheehan, 2022 COA 29, ¶ 22. We must accept the magistrate’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. In 2  re Marriage of Young, 2021 COA 96, ¶ 8. However, we review questions of law de novo. Sheehan, ¶ 22. III. Incorrect Legal Standard when Modifying Decision-Making ¶8 We first consider father’s argument that the magistrate erred by applying the wrong legal standard when modifying decision- making. Because the magistrate’s findings and conclusions are insufficient to show that the court applied the correct legal standard to its decision modifying decision-making responsibility, we conclude that further proceedings are necessary. A. Applicable Law ¶9 The district court may modify a decree allocating decision- making responsibility when the circumstances have c