Court Opinion

ID: 9736338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:52:57.813304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:06.042953
License: Public Domain

Judge FURMAN
specially concurring.
I concur with the majority that this case presents a "narrowly tailored argument" of whether the district court erred in restricting father's parenting time, without finding that, absent such a restriction, the parenting time would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development.
The existing parenting plan, to which father agreed, provided that he submit to "ongoing UA's and drug sereenings to demonstrate that he does not return to marijuana use." We have concluded that plan is to remain in effect.
I write separately, however, because I disagree with the majority's conclusion that "nothing in this opinion precludes father from arguing that his constitutional right to use medical marijuana should bar urinalysis testing." I would limit our analysis to the arguments before us and, irrespective of whatever constitutional right father may have, any modification to the existing parenting plan must be based on the best interests of the child. See § 14-10-129(1)(a)(D), C.R.S. 2009 ("the court may ... modify an order granting or denying parenting time rights whenever. such ... modification would serve the best interests of the child").
Also, I am concerned that mother filed a motion to restrict father's parenting time, and was not afforded a hearing to allow her to show father's use of medical marijuana *514"would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development." See § 14-10-129(1)(b)(D), C.R.S.2009.