Court Opinion

ID: 9863518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 05:45:15.855076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:49:08.997057
License: Public Domain

Judge MARQUEZ
specially concurring.
I write separately to explain my view of section 14-10-129.5(4), C.R.S.2007, and to clarify my position on that portion of the opinion indicating that father may bring an independent action in tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Generally, disputes over matters that were the subject of a dissolution action must be brought in the dissolution court. Mockelmann v. Mockelmann, 121 P.3d 337, 339 (Colo.App.2005). Independent tort actions have been recognized in cases involving personal injuries to one spouse caused by the other and emotional distress caused by the other's outrageous conduct during the marriage, see Simmons v. Simmons, 773 P.2d 602, 603 (Colo.App.1988), and kidnapping by the noncustodial parent. See D & D Fuller CATV Constr., Inc. v. Pace, 780 P.2d 520, 523 (Colo.1989).
Here, as the majority notes, father's complaint alleged inter alia that mother had committed tortious acts during an ongoing dispute over parenting time. The record re-fleets that the parties were divorced in Oklahoma, that they were awarded joint parental decision-making concerning their child, and that mother was awarded primary residential custody of the child. Mother then moved to Colorado with the child, and father moved here later, purportedly to exercise his parenting time. Father's complaint alleges that the parties entered into an agreement regarding parenting time, but mother then moved to another state with the child. Father then brought this action, relying in part on section 14-10-129.5(4).
Among father's claims for relief was one alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claim essentially rests on mother's removing the child from Colorado and depriving father of parenting time while father was recuperating from a severe injury. The complaint contains no allegation of physical injury or conduct contrary to court order.
*702The sentence in section 14-10-129.5(4), "Nothing in this section shall preclude a party's right to a separate and independent legal action in tort," appears in the statute relating to disputes concerning parenting time. It appears only as the last sentence of paragraph (4), which addresses attorney fees, court costs, and "expenses that are associated with an action brought pursuant to this section." No explanation or examples of an independent tort action are provided. Thus, the intent of the General Assembly in adding this sentence is not clear. Arguably, the independent tort action must relate to disputes over parenting time.
In my view, however, the sentence should not be construed so broadly as to recognize an independent action brought under the guise of an intentional tort but with the purpose of enforcing or modifying parenting time. Therefore, I would require that this distinction be made before allowing a claim to go forward.