Court Opinion

ID: 5163910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 03:14:24.23862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:56:46.952084
License: Public Domain

[1] This is an original proceeding pursuant to C.A.R. 21. We issued a rule to show cause in this original proceeding after a petition for a custody evaluation was filed and denied without specific findings in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. We now make the rule absolute. Custody of Carolyn Kuyatt, age 4, and Melissa Kuyatt, age 7, was in issue. Petitioner Susan Annette Kuyatt's motion for a custody evaluation was denied without specific findings by the trial court to support the refusal of the requested custody evaluation.
[2] The impoverishment of the petitioner and the method proposed for payment of the costs of the evaluation were not disputed.
[3] In Hernandez v. District Court, No. 91SA44 (Colo. July 9, 1991), we held that the word "shall" in section 14-10-127(1)(a)(I), 6B C.R.S. (1990 Supp.), required that the motion be granted in the absence of a finding that the motion was made for the purpose of delay. See also In re Marriageof Sepmeier, 782 P.2d 876 (Colo.App. 1989). No such finding was made in this case. *Page 117 
[4] Accordingly, the rule to show cause is made absolute and the case is remanded to the district court with directions to order a custody evaluation and for entry of appropriate orders for the payment of costs in accordance with the directions set forth in Hernandez v. District Court. *Page 500