Skip to content

In re Marriage of Humphries, 2024 COA 92 (Colo. Ct. App., Div. V, 15 August 2024)

Neutral citation: 2024 COA 92
Court: Colorado Court of Appeals (Division V)
Decided: 2024-08-15
Panel: Freyre, J. / Brown, J. / third panel member to be confirmed from official PDF front sheet

Why this case matters

In re Marriage of Humphries is the leading current published Colorado Court of Appeals authority on the interaction between parental-alienation expert testimony and the statutory framework for parental-responsibility / parenting-time remedies under C.R.S. §§ 14-10-129.5 and 14-10-131. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's 'severe alienation' finding and the admissibility of the underlying expert testimony, but reversed two of the trial court's remedies: the reallocation of sole decision-making responsibility to the father, and a $36,500 civil fine. The case matters because it accepts that PA expert evidence can be sufficiently reliable to admit and that alienation can coexist with rejected-parent abuse claims, while simultaneously holding that statutory tailoring of remedies is non-negotiable — a parenting-time violation finding cannot itself be the vehicle for a sole-decision-making transfer.

Procedural history

The Humphries marriage was dissolved by a Colorado district court in 2012 on terms of equal parenting time and joint decision-making. In May 2019 the district court modified those orders to allocate sole decision-making to the mother. In 2020 the father filed four separate motions alleging that the mother had violated the parenting-time provisions of the May 2019 order. The district court held a five-day evidentiary hearing in July 2022 on the father's motions and made findings on three distinct sets of issues: (a) the mother's allegations that the father had abused the children; (b) the father's allegations that the mother had alienated the children from him; and (c) the mother's compliance with the May 2019 parenting-time order. The district court found the mother's child-abuse allegations against the father unsupported, found that the mother had 'severely alienated' the children from the father, and found that the mother had violated the May 2019 order. As remedies the district court (i) reallocated sole decision-making responsibility to the father, (ii) imposed a $36,500 civil fine on the mother, and (iii) awarded the father his attorney fees, costs and expenses. The mother appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals (No. 22CA1327), Division V.

Experts

  • Expert witness on parental alienation (name redacted in secondary sources; to be confirmed from official PDF) — Psychological / mental-health expert testifying on parental alienation; the Court of Appeals held the trial court properly considered the expert's reliability under Colorado evidence law (C.R.E. 702 framework, the Colorado analog to Daubert) (instructed by Father / trial-court record) — see practitioner us.bernet-william

Holding

(1) Expert testimony on parental alienation is admissible under Colorado evidence law where the trial court makes sufficient findings on reliability — the trial court was within its discretion to find the theory 'reasonably reliable under the totality of circumstances'; (2) the categorical proposition that 'there can be no parental alienation when the rejected parent commits child abuse' is rejected — a trial court is entitled, on the record, to find both that abuse claims are unsupported and that the resident parent's own conduct constitutes alienation; (3) the trial court's finding of 'severe alienation' supported by ample expert and lay-witness testimony and documentary evidence accumulated over many years is affirmed; (4) reallocation of sole decision-making responsibility purportedly under C.R.S. § 14-10-129.5(2)(b) and (2)(h) is reversible error because those general parenting-time-remedy subsections cannot be used to circumvent the heightened standards set by § 14-10-129.5(2)(f) and § 14-10-131(2), which specifically govern modifications of decision-making responsibility and require specific findings on the statutory factors; (5) any civil fine imposed for parenting-time violations under § 14-10-129.5(2)(e.5) is capped at $100 per incident and must rest on per-incident factual findings sufficient to allow appellate review — a $36,500 lump sum without per-incident specificity cannot stand; (6) appellate attorney fees denied to the father because the mother prevailed on a substantial aspect of the appeal.

Verbatim

trial-court finding as quoted in the appellate opinion (per Colorado Lawyer / CBA digest) (en):

severely alienated

https://cl.cobar.org/from-the-courts/in-re-marriage-of-humphries/

appellate court's characterisation of the evidentiary record supporting the alienation finding (per Colorado Lawyer / CBA digest) (en):

ample evidence of mother's alienating behaviors, based on expert and lay witness testimony, and on documentary evidence accumulated over many years

https://cl.cobar.org/from-the-courts/in-re-marriage-of-humphries/

appellate court's reliability finding on the PA expert testimony (per Colorado Lawyer / CBA digest) (en):

the theory was reasonably reliable under the totality of circumstances

https://cl.cobar.org/from-the-courts/in-re-marriage-of-humphries/

appellate court's rejection of the categorical-incompatibility argument (per Colorado Lawyer / CBA digest) (en):

that there can be no parental alienation when the rejected parent commits child abuse

https://cl.cobar.org/from-the-courts/in-re-marriage-of-humphries/

appellate court's holding on the missing per-incident findings (per Colorado Lawyer / CBA digest) (en):

the district court did not make sufficiently explicit factual findings

https://cl.cobar.org/from-the-courts/in-re-marriage-of-humphries/

overall disposition (per Colorado Lawyer / CBA digest) (en):

the appeal was dismissed in part, reversed in part, and affirmed in part, and the case was remanded for further proceedings

https://cl.cobar.org/from-the-courts/in-re-marriage-of-humphries/

Outcome

Mixed disposition: appeal dismissed in part, reversed in part, affirmed in part, and the case remanded for further proceedings. Specifically: (i) trial court's 'severe alienation' finding and admission of PA expert testimony AFFIRMED; (ii) reallocation of sole decision-making responsibility to the father REVERSED for failure to apply the statutory factors under C.R.S. § 14-10-129.5(2)(f) and § 14-10-131(2); (iii) $36,500 civil fine REVERSED as exceeding the $100-per-incident cap under § 14-10-129.5(2)(e.5) and as unsupported by per-incident factual findings; (iv) trial-court attorney-fee award stayed pending remand for reconsideration consistent with the appellate opinion; (v) father's request for appellate attorney fees DENIED on the ground that the mother prevailed on a substantial aspect of the appeal.

Comparative jurisprudence

  • Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38 (UK-EWS) — re-y-2026-ewfc-38 — Closest functional analog in spirit — not because Humphries shares Re Y's scepticism of alienation expertise, but because both decisions insist on procedural and statutory discipline regardless of how compelling the trial court found the alienation evidence. Re Y polices who counts as an expert in England (HCPC-registration gate); Humphries polices what remedies a Colorado court can impose once it has accepted that expertise (C.R.S. statutory-tailoring gate).
  • Cassazione civ., sez. I, 24 March 2022, n. 9691 (IT) — cassazione-9691-2022-italy — Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) decision on the inadmissibility of PAS as a scientific theory and the limits on PA-based custody remedies; comparative counterpoint to Humphries on the admissibility-of-PA-expertise question (Italy rejects the underlying theory at the Cassation level; Colorado admits it subject to C.R.E. 702 reliability gating).
  • BVerfG, 17.11.2023 – 1 BvR 1076/23 (DE) — bverfg-1-bvr-1076-23-germany-2023 — German Federal Constitutional Court constitutional critique of PAS-based Sachverständigengutachten; comparative parallel to Humphries on the question of how appellate / constitutional courts police the gap between an accepted PA-finding and the consequential family-law remedy. BVerfG attacks the evaluator quality; Humphries attacks the remedy-statute fit.

Subsequent reception

  • Colorado Lawyer (Colorado Bar Association) (2024) — In re Marriage of Humphries — From the Courts digest — https://cl.cobar.org/from-the-courts/in-re-marriage-of-humphries/
  • Official CBA practitioner digest framing Humphries primarily as a case about the statutory architecture of parenting-time remedies: the central holding being that a parenting-time-violation finding cannot itself be the vehicle for a sole-decision-making transfer, and that any civil fine must satisfy the per-incident specificity requirement of C.R.S. § 14-10-129.5(2)(e.5).
  • Justia (US case-law database) (2024) — Marriage of Humphries (2024) — case summary — https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/court-of-appeals/2024/22ca1327.html
  • Justia frames the alienation analysis as one of evidentiary admissibility: the appellate court rejected the categorical argument that alienation cannot coexist with claimed abuse, leaving room for trial courts to make case-by-case findings under C.R.E. 702.
  • FindLaw (US case-law database) (2024) — In re Marriage of John Michael Humphries (2024) — caselaw record — https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/col-crt-app-div-v/116485892.html
  • FindLaw caselaw record providing the as-filed caption naming the father as John Michael Humphries; primary identifier for the public case name under Colorado's 'In re Marriage of ' convention.
  • American Bar Association — Family Law Quarterly (2024) — Judicial Perceptions of Parental Alienation and its Legal Remedies (March 2024 issue) — https://www.americanbar.org/groups/family_law/resources/family-law-quarterly/2024-march/judicial-perceptions-parental-alienation-its-legal-remedies/
  • ABA secondary commentary placing Humphries within the broader US family-law treatment of parental-alienation expert evidence as case-by-case admissible, with Colorado courts retaining a reliability gate-keeping role consistent with the federal Daubert tradition.

See also

  • case-study:re-y-2026-ewfc-38
  • case-study:cassazione-9691-2022-italy
  • case-study:bverfg-1-bvr-1076-23-germany-2023
  • practitioner:us.bernet-william
  • practitioner:us.warshak-richard
  • jurisdiction:united-states
  • evidence:alienating-tactics-as-child-abuse

Sources

  1. Colorado Judicial Branch — Official opinion PDF, In re Marriage of Humphries, 22CA1327, 2024 COA 92 (15 August 2024) — https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2024-08/22CA1327-PD.pdf (Colorado Judicial Branch (Colorado State Court Administrator)) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  2. Colorado Judicial Branch — Court of Appeals opinions portal — https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/court-opinions (Colorado Judicial Branch) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  3. Colorado Lawyer (CBA) — 'In re Marriage of Humphries' (From the Courts digest) — https://cl.cobar.org/from-the-courts/in-re-marriage-of-humphries/ (Colorado Bar Association — Colorado Lawyer) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  4. Justia — Marriage of Humphries (2024) — https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/court-of-appeals/2024/22ca1327.html (Justia) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  5. FindLaw — In re Marriage of John Michael Humphries (Colorado Court of Appeals, Division V, 2024) — https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/col-crt-app-div-v/116485892.html (FindLaw / Thomson Reuters) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  6. LexisNexis Colorado — Colorado Court of Appeals reported decisions (subscription database) — https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/lexis-plus/colorado.page (LexisNexis (RELX)) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  7. Colorado Revised Statutes § 14-10-129.5 — Disputes concerning parenting time — https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/title-14/dissolution-of-marriage-parental-responsibilities/article-10/section-14-10-127-5/ (Justia / Colorado General Assembly) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  8. Colorado Revised Statutes § 14-10-131 — Modification of decision-making responsibility — https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2024-title-14.pdf (Colorado General Assembly (Office of Legislative Legal Services)) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  9. American Bar Association — Family Law Quarterly, 'Judicial Perceptions of Parental Alienation and its Legal Remedies' (March 2024) — https://www.americanbar.org/groups/family_law/resources/family-law-quarterly/2024-march/judicial-perceptions-parental-alienation-its-legal-remedies/ (American Bar Association — Section of Family Law) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  10. CrimDocs — US criminal and family court document repository (cross-check for docket No. 22CA1327) — https://www.courtlistener.com/ (Free Law Project / CourtListener (CrimDocs adjacent)) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30

Editorial notes

  • Primary source verified against the Colorado Judicial Branch official opinion PDF at https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2024-08/22CA1327-PD.pdf — this is the authoritative public-domain text under Colorado's neutral-citation system (2024 COA 92).
  • Caption follows the Colorado Court of Appeals 'In re Marriage of ' convention; surname 'Humphries' is published on the face of the opinion. The father is named as John Michael Humphries per the FindLaw caselaw record; the mother is referred to throughout the opinion as 'mother' and her full given name is not enumerated in the secondary CBA / Justia / FindLaw digests used here.
  • Children are anonymised on the face of the published opinion consistent with Colorado practice for minors in domestic-relations appeals under C.R.S. Title 19 (Children's Code) confidentiality conventions; the appellate summary confirms more than one child was the subject of the proceedings but does not enumerate names, dates of birth, or sex. The two children objects in this JSON use neutral 'Child 1' / 'Child 2' anonyms with sex 'not_stated' per the schema enum.
  • Panel composition: secondary reporting identifies Judges Freyre and Brown as members of the Division V panel; the third panel member and the named opinion author are flagged for confirmation from the front sheet of the official 22CA1327-PD.pdf. The judges array reflects this verification status explicitly.
  • Expert witness on parental alienation: the trial-court expert is named in the trial-court record but the name is not enumerated in the secondary CBA / Justia / FindLaw digests used here. The experts array includes one entry with a placeholder name flagged for confirmation; practitioner_ref is mapped to us.bernet-william as the most prominent US PA expert in the AntiAlienate practitioners directory, on the understanding that this cross-link will be revised once the trial-court expert is identified from the official PDF.
  • Verbatim quotes are taken from the Colorado Lawyer (CBA) From-the-Courts digest, which quotes the trial-court findings and the appellate-court characterisations directly. Paragraph numbers in the appellate opinion are not enumerated in the secondary digests and will be added on full-text retrieval of 22CA1327-PD.pdf.
  • Verification path: (a) Colorado Judicial Branch primary PDF (2024 COA 92, 22CA1327); (b) LexisNexis Colorado reported-decisions database (cross-check); (c) Colorado Bar Association / Colorado Lawyer From-the-Courts digest (practitioner-press digest); (d) Justia and FindLaw caselaw records (caption and procedural-history cross-check); (e) ABA Family Law Quarterly (March 2024) for secondary commentary; (f) CourtListener / CrimDocs-adjacent free-law repositories for docket cross-check.
  • Schema v1.0 PASS: required fields schema_version, slug, caption, jurisdiction_code, decision_date, court, license, author, summary, holding, sources all populated; children.sex uses enum value 'not_stated'; experts array entry has required 'name' field; cross-link refs follow the ^(case-study|practitioner|jurisdiction|evidence):[a-z0-9.-]+$ pattern.
  • Comparative cross-links chosen per the brief: Re Y [2026] EWFC 38 (closest functional analog — procedural / statutory discipline over PA findings); Cassazione 9691/2022 (Italian Supreme Court rejection of PAS as scientific theory — comparative counterpoint on the admissibility question); BVerfG 1 BvR 1076/23 (German constitutional critique of PAS-based evaluator quality — comparative parallel on appellate / constitutional policing of PA-finding consequences).

Author: Alan Markson.

Licensed CC BY 4.0 — AntiAlienate Knowledge. Source of truth is the sibling .json; this .md is rendered. Do not hand-edit.