Longmont Family Law & Divorce — with Attorney Liken, a court-appointed CFI

A CFI is the court’s neutral investigator in a custody dispute — appointed under C.R.S. § 14-10-116.5, governed by Chief Justice Directive 04-08. Either parent can request one (or the judge appoints one on the court’s own motion), typically where parenting time, decision-making, relocation, or safety allegations are genuinely contested. The appointment order defines the exact questions the CFI must answer — the CFI cannot roam beyond it.

Expect a brief, focused, non-intrusive investigation: interviews with both parents, age-appropriate conversations with the children, home visits, and calls to the people who actually see you parent — teachers, therapists, coaches, doctors — plus a review of records the appointment order covers. The CFI is a trained observer with a mandatory-reporter obligation: anything you say, text, or file can end up in the report.

A written report, filed with the court and served on both sides, with specific recommendations on the best-interests questions in the appointment order. If the order doesn’t set a deadline, the report is due at least 35 days before the hearing — which is your window to digest it, gather rebuttal evidence, and decide whether to settle on its terms or contest it.

For private-pay appointments the fee is presumptively capped at $3,250 per appointment, plus up to $500 for testimony and preparation (CJD 04-08, amended effective August 7, 2024); the CFI must get advance court approval to exceed those caps, and discovery costs are excluded. The court allocates the cost between the parents — often by income — and parties who qualify as indigent may have the fee paid at state expense under CJD 04-05.

The CFI (C.R.S. § 14-10-116.5) is the faster, cheaper, capped instrument. A Parental Responsibilities Evaluator (C.R.S. § 14-10-127) is a licensed mental-health professional who performs a deeper forensic evaluation — psychological testing, extensive collateral work — at a cost that routinely runs five figures with no presumptive cap. Which tool fits (or whether to ask for a PRE after a bad CFI report) is a strategy decision worth real advice.

Formally, it’s a recommendation — the judge decides. Practically, a thorough CFI report frames the entire hearing: judges lean on a credible neutral’s work, and the side fighting the report carries the practical burden. That’s exactly why the investigation phase — not the hearing — is where most CFI cases are won or lost.

Do: tell the truth (CFIs verify), follow every court order to the letter, keep your home ready for a visit, respond promptly and civilly, give the CFI collaterals who have actually watched you parent, and stay child-focused in every answer. Don’t: coach the children (CFIs are trained to spot it, and it backfires like nothing else), trash the other parent, treat the CFI as your advocate, or put anything in a text or email you wouldn’t want quoted in the report.

You are not stuck. The CFI can be deposed and cross-examined at the hearing; the report’s factual gaps can be attacked with your own evidence; in the right case you can move for a § 14-10-127 evaluation; and CJD 04-08 has a formal complaint process (start by requesting preliminary findings from the presiding judge — deadlines are short). What you cannot do is ignore it. The 35 days between report and hearing are the most important month of your case.

These are post-decree tools for high-conflict co-parenting. A Parenting Coordinator (§ 14-10-128.1) can be appointed on the court’s own motion, either parent’s motion, or by agreement — and even without both parents’ consent if the court finds the parenting plan isn’t being implemented, that mediation won’t work, and that appointment serves the children’s best interests. A Decision-Maker (§ 14-10-128.3) is different: it can be appointed only on the written consent of both parents. Frequently the same neutral is appointed to both roles.

A PC facilitates: structured guidelines, communication rules, and strategies to defuse conflict so you can carry out the plan you already have — a PC cannot impose a decision on you. A DM decides: within the authority both parents granted, the DM issues a binding ruling that takes effect immediately. In a combined PC/DM appointment, the neutral first tries to move you to agreement (the PC hat); if that fails, the DM hat makes the call.

A DM resolves disputes about implementing or clarifying existing orders — parenting-time logistics, specific disputed decisions, and child-support implementation — and the decision has to stay consistent with what the court already ordered. What a DM cannot do is substantially modify parental responsibilities: a real change to decision-making or a substantial change in parenting time still belongs to the judge, under the modification statutes.

By the court’s own motion, a parent’s motion, or agreement. Without mutual consent, the court must first make findings — failure to adequately implement the plan, mediation inappropriate or unsuccessful, and best interests. The appointment is capped at two years; going longer takes the parents’ agreement. The PC must be a trained, independent neutral acceptable to the court.

Yes. The DM’s decision must be written, dated, signed, and filed with the court, and it takes effect immediately. Either parent may ask the court to modify it by requesting a hearing no later than 35 days after the decision; the court then reviews it de novo — fresh, with no deference. One caution built into § 14-10-128.3: if the court substantially upholds the DM’s decision, the parent who challenged it generally pays both sides’ and the DM’s fees unless that would be manifestly unjust — so a challenge is a strategy call worth real advice.

A PC/DM has real, ongoing influence over your day-to-day parenting — and a DM can bind you. That makes who gets appointed, and how you prepare for them, a genuine strategy decision. Attorney Liken serves as a court-appointed PC/DM and represents parents who have one across the table — so whether you want a PC/DM requested, agreed to, prepared for, or challenged, he has sat in that exact chair.