TRY ME!
Motion For New Trial
Summary
To draft a motion for a new trial in Colorado, highlight fraud and newly discovered evidence under C.R.C.P. 59 and 60(b)(2). Emphasize the importance of pending evidence, such as the acknowledgment of paternity, and address any court misunderstandings. Consider filing a motion for clarification if there were trial misunderstandings or pressured timelines affecting the decision.Full Conversation
ash
Hello Ash! How can I assist you with your legal issue today? Could you please provide me with some details about your situation?
I need help writing a motion for a new trial trial pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure (C.R.C.P. ) * and *(b)(*). This motion is based on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and newly discovered evidence, which materially affected the outcome of the original trial. Specifically, the respondent, Mr.Olive, lied about signing a Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VOP) and about knowing he was not the father, raising significant credibility concerns *-*-*.*. When determination of parentage is final - modifications - exceptions.. In support of this motion, Petitioner states as follows: Grounds for New Trial: Petitioner seeks a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence and fraud, specifically that the respondent, Olive, lied about signing a Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VOP) and about knowing he was not the father of the child in question. This false testimony significantly impacts the credibility of the respondent and the integrity of the trial proceedings.
Newly Discovered Evidence: Under C.R.C.P. *(d)(*), a new trial may be granted for newly discovered evidence that is material and could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the trial. The evidence that Mr. Olive lied about signing the VOP and knew he was not the father was not available to the Petitioner during the trial and has only recently come to light C.R.C.P. *, New Trials; Amendment of Judgments., Buchanan v. Burgess, * Colo. *.
Fraud and Misconduct: According to *-*-*. Presumption of paternity., an acknowledgment of parentage may be challenged in court on the basis of fraud. The respondent's false testimony constitutes fraud, as he knowingly misrepresented his acknowledgment of paternity, which directly influenced the court's determination of parentage *-*-*. Presumption of paternity..
Credibility Concerns: The credibility of the respondent is crucial in paternity cases. The newly discovered evidence that Olive lied about his acknowledgment of paternity raises significant concerns about his overall credibility and the fairness of the trial. This aligns with the principles outlined in People v. McNeely, * P.3d *, where the court emphasized the importance of credibility and the potential impact of false testimony on the trial's outcome People v. McNeely, * P.3d *.
this is the minute order from previous trial CASE ON DOCKET FOR FINDINGS RE: PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY FILED BY
PETITIONER (PET) JEMMINGS AND PETITION TO ESTABLISH PARENTAGE FILED BY
VENUE AND JURISDICTION ARE PROPER; PET JEMMINGS
RESPONDENT (RSP) BRANHAM;
RESIDES IN EL PASO COUNT¥ WITH MINOR CHILD; RESPODENT (RSP) OLIVE RESIDES
IN
EL PASO COUNTY AND RSP BRANHAM RESIDES IN EL PASO COUNTY; SERVICE AND/OR
WAIVER OF SERVICE TOOK PLACE IN.COLORADO; COURT HEARD EVIDENCE ON BOTH
matters on July *, *; PET JEMMINGS TESTIFIED; RSP OLIVE TESTIFIED; RSP
BRANHAM TESTIFIED; CREDIBILITY CONCERNS WITH ALL WITNESSES; BASED ON
DEMEANOR/BEHAVIOR/TONE OF VOICE AND
EMOTIONAL RESPONSES WHILE TESTIFYING;
AS WELL AS POTENTIAL MOTIVE tO NOT BE FULLY FORTHCOMING WITH THE COURT; PET
AND RSP OLIVE SHARE * CHILDREN AND HAVE A CONTENIOUS CO-PARENTING RELATIONSHIP; RSP BRANHAM AND PET JEMMINGS ARE ROOMMATES AND FRIENDS; THE COURT DID NOT FIND ONE WITNESS TO BE MORE CREDIBLE THAN THE OThERS; THE COURT ACCEPTED THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS EXHIBIT * AND THE LAB CORP GENETIC TEST RESULTS AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENTATION AS EXHIBIT * PURSUANT TO *-*-*, C.R.S; GENETIC TEST RESULTS REFLECT A ZERO PERCENT PROBABILITY THAT RSP OLIVE IS THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD; RSP BRANHAM IS NOT
ALLEGED TO BE THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD; PET JEMMINGS IS TIMED
BARRED FROM PURSUING THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY BASED ON GENETIC
TESTING_UNDER *-*-*.*; MORE THAN TWO YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY SIGNED BY RSP OLIVE BECAME AN ADJUDICATION OF PARENTAGE PURSUANT TO *-*-*(*) (D); ADDITIONALLY RSP OLIVE TESTIFIED HE BELIEVED HE WAS NOT THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD WHEN HE SIGNED THE VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY AT THE HOSPITAL AND CONSENTED TO BEING ADDED TO THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE; THAT BEING SAID THE COURT DOES FIND PET JEMMINGS PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY IS APPROPRIATELY IN FRONT OF THE COURT PURSUANT TO *-*-*(*) (B) AND *-*-*(B) (I); NOTING THE CHLID WASUNDER THE AGE OF * WHEN THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY WAS FILED; THE COURT ALSO FINDS RSP BRANHAM IS NOT TIME BARRED FROM MOVING THE COURT TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY; THE COURT THEREFORE CONSIDERS THE PRESUMPTIONS OF
PATERNITY PURSUANT TO *-*-*; THE COURT FINDS THE FOLLOWING REGARDING
PRESUMPTIONS IN FAVOR OF RSP OLIVE; PET JEMMINGS IS THE NATURAL MOTHER OF THE
CHILD: BEFORE THE CHILDS BIRTH PET JEMMINGS AND RSP OLIVE ATTEMPTED MARRIAGE ALTHOUGH THE ATTEMPTED MARRIAGE WAS LATER DECLARED INVALID BY WAY OF A COURT ORDER; THE CHILD WAS BORN DURING THE ATTEMPTED MARRIAGE; COURT ORDER ISSUED IN 20DR32558 EL PASO COUNTY COLORADO ON AUGUST *, * RETROACTIVE; RSP OLIVE RECEIVED THE CHILD INTO HIS HOME AND OPENLY HELD THE CHILD OUT AS HIS OWN; RSP OLIVE IS LISTED ON THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE BY WAY OF SIGNING A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PARENTAGE UPON THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD; PET JEMMINGS DID NOT DISPUTE THE VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PARENTAGE WITHIN * DAYS OR WITHIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME; THE COURT FINDS THE FOLLOWING IN FAVOR OF RSP BRANHAM; RSP BRANHAM RECEIVED THE MINOR CHILD INTO HIS HOME AND OPENLY HELD THE CHILD OUT AS HIS OWN; NO OTHER PRESUMPTIONS; RSP BRANHAM DID SIGN A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEGEMENT OF PARENTAGE AND FILE IT INTO THE CASE AFTER THE COMENCEMENT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS; HOWEVER ALL PRESUMED PARENTS DID NOT CONSENT; PET JEMMINGS CONSENTED: RSP OLIVE DID NOT CONSENT; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS NO PRESUMPTIONS OF PATERNITY HAVE BEEN REBUTTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCINGEVIDENCE; THEREFORE THE COURT APPLIES A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD To ESOLVE THE COMPETING PATERNITY PRESUMPTIONS; COURT CONSIDERS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE ACCEPTED AT HEARING; AND THE PERTINENT FACTORS LISTED IN *-*-* CRS(*) (A); PET JEMMINGS FILED THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY ON AUGUST *, *; THE CHILD WAS * YEARS AND * MONTHS OLD AT THE TIME THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY WAS FILED; PET JEMMINGS BECAME AWARE THAT RSP OLIVE MAY NOT BE THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD IN *; PET BECAME AWARE BASED on THE APPEARANCE OF THE CHILD; ADDITIONALLY PET JEMMINGS HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A PERSON OTHER THAN RSP OLIVE AROUND THE TIME OF CONCEPTION;
NONETHELESS THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY WAS NOT FILED UNTIL AT LEAST
THREE EARS LATER; RSP OLIVE KNEW HE MAY NOT BE THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE
CHILD SINCE THE TIME OF CONCEPTION; NONETHLESS RSP OLIVE SIGNED A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY; RSP OLIVE CONSENTED TO BEING LISTED AS LEGAL FATHER ON THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE; AND WELCOMED THE CHILD INTO HIS HOME AS HIS NATURAL CHILD; ADDITIONALLY PET JEMMINGS AND RSP OLIVE LIVED TOGETHER AS AN INTACT FAMILY WITH THE CHILD AND THEIR TWO ADDITIONAL SHARED CHILDREN UNTIL JANUARY *; RSP OLIVE ASSERTS HE IS THE LEGAL FATHER OF THE CHILD;
PET AND RSP OLIVE LIVED TOGETHER DURING THE PREGNANCY OF THE CHILD; RSP OLIVE
WAS PRESENT AT THE BIRTH Of tHE CHILD AND THE FAMILY CONPIUNED TO LIVE
TOGETHER FOR AN ADDITIONAL * MONTHS AFTER THE CHILD WAS BORN; RSP OLIVE HAS
HAD IN PERSON CONTACT WITH THE CHILD * TO * TIMES SINCE; RSP OLIVE ASSERTS
PET JEMMINGS HAS PREVENTED HIM FROM HAVING ADDITIONAL CONTACT WITH THE CHILD; PET JEMMINGS DENIES THIS ASSERTION; THERE IS CONTESTED DR CASE REGARDING CUSTODY; PEt OLIVE IS CURRENTLY COURT ORDERED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILD; THE CHILD HAS REFERRED TO BOTH RSP OLIVE AND RSP BRANHAM AS DAD OR DADDY; RSP BRANHAM IS LEGALLY MARRIED TO A PERSON WHO IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS CASE; RSP BRANHAM HAS LIVED IN THE SAME HOME AS HIS SPOUSE; ALONG WITH PET JEMMINGS; THE CHILD OF THIS ACTION AND PET OTHER TWO CHILDREN SINCE APRIL *; RSP BRANHAM HAS ASSISTED SOMEWHAT IN FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING PET JEMMINGS AND PET THREE CHILDREN; BOTH RSP OLIVE AND RSP BRANHAM HAVE HELD THEMELES OUT TO BE THE FATHER OF THE CHILD AND WELCOMED THE CHILD INTO THEIR HOMES; BOTH HAVE A PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILD; BASED ON THE WEIGHTIER CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY AND LOGIC; THE COURT FINDS IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD TO DENY THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY AND TO DENY THE PETITION TO ESTABLISH PARENTAGE OF RSP BRANHAM; RESPONDENT DUSTIN CARROLL OLIVE IS ADJUDICATED TO-BE LEGAL FATHER OF THE MINOR CHILD; AND HAS LEGAL RIGHTS AND RESPNSIBILITIES TO THE CHILD; THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DOES NOT NEED TO BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THE COURTS FINDINGS; RSP OLIVE IS ALREADY LISTED ON THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE; RSP OLIVE AND PET JEMMINGS SHALL ADDRESS ALL PARENTING TIME AND CHILD SUPPORT MATTERS IN CASE 20DR32558; THE COURT INCORPORATES ALL FINDINGS AND ORDERS MADE ON THE RECORD INTO THIS WRITTEN ORDER; TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE ANY DISCREPANCIES THIS WRITTEN ORDER CONTROLS; CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JURISDICTION IS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS PROCEEDING; THEREFORE ANY APPEAL MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN *
DAYS PURSUANT TO COLORADO RULES FOR MAGISTRATES, RULE * (A)
CASE ON DOCKET FOR FINDINGS RE: PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY FILED BY
PETITIONER (PET) JEMMINGS AND PETITION TO ESTABLISH PARENTAGE FILED BY
VENUE AND JURISDICTION ARE PROPER; PET JEMMINGS
RESPONDENT (RSP) BRANHAM;
RESIDES IN EL PASO COUNT¥ WITH MINOR CHILD; RESPODENT (RSP) OLIVE RESIDES
IN
EL PASO COUNTY AND RSP BRANHAM RESIDES IN EL PASO COUNTY; SERVICE AND/OR
WAIVER OF SERVICE TOOK PLACE IN.COLORADO; COURT HEARD EVIDENCE ON BOTH
matters on July *, *; PET JEMMINGS TESTIFIED; RSP OLIVE TESTIFIED; RSP
BRANHAM TESTIFIED; CREDIBILITY CONCERNS WITH ALL WITNESSES; BASED ON
DEMEANOR/BEHAVIOR/TONE OF VOICE AND
EMOTIONAL RESPONSES WHILE TESTIFYING;
AS WELL AS POTENTIAL MOTIVE tO NOT BE FULLY FORTHCOMING WITH THE COURT; PET
AND RSP OLIVE SHARE * CHILDREN AND HAVE A CONTENIOUS CO-PARENTING RELATIONSHIP; RSP BRANHAM AND PET JEMMINGS ARE ROOMMATES AND FRIENDS; THE COURT DID NOT FIND ONE WITNESS TO BE MORE CREDIBLE THAN THE OThERS; THE COURT ACCEPTED THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS EXHIBIT * AND THE LAB CORP GENETIC TEST RESULTS AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENTATION AS EXHIBIT * PURSUANT TO *-*-*, C.R.S; GENETIC TEST RESULTS REFLECT A ZERO PERCENT PROBABILITY THAT RSP OLIVE IS THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD; RSP BRANHAM IS NOT
ALLEGED TO BE THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD; PET JEMMINGS IS TIMED
BARRED FROM PURSUING THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY BASED ON GENETIC
TESTING_UNDER *-*-*.*; MORE THAN TWO YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY SIGNED BY RSP OLIVE BECAME AN ADJUDICATION OF PARENTAGE PURSUANT TO *-*-*(*) (D); ADDITIONALLY RSP OLIVE TESTIFIED HE BELIEVED HE WAS NOT THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD WHEN HE SIGNED THE VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY AT THE HOSPITAL AND CONSENTED TO BEING ADDED TO THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE; THAT BEING SAID THE COURT DOES FIND PET JEMMINGS PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY IS APPROPRIATELY IN FRONT OF THE COURT PURSUANT TO *-*-*(*) (B) AND *-*-*(B) (I); NOTING THE CHLID WASUNDER THE AGE OF * WHEN THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY WAS FILED; THE COURT ALSO FINDS RSP BRANHAM IS NOT TIME BARRED FROM MOVING THE COURT TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY; THE COURT THEREFORE CONSIDERS THE PRESUMPTIONS OF
PATERNITY PURSUANT TO *-*-*; THE COURT FINDS THE FOLLOWING REGARDING
PRESUMPTIONS IN FAVOR OF RSP OLIVE; PET JEMMINGS IS THE NATURAL MOTHER OF THE
CHILD: BEFORE THE CHILDS BIRTH PET JEMMINGS AND RSP OLIVE ATTEMPTED MARRIAGE ALTHOUGH THE ATTEMPTED MARRIAGE WAS LATER DECLARED INVALID BY WAY OF A COURT ORDER; THE CHILD WAS BORN DURING THE ATTEMPTED MARRIAGE; COURT ORDER ISSUED IN 20DR32558 EL PASO COUNTY COLORADO ON AUGUST *, * RETROACTIVE; RSP OLIVE RECEIVED THE CHILD INTO HIS HOME AND OPENLY HELD THE CHILD OUT AS HIS OWN; RSP OLIVE IS LISTED ON THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE BY WAY OF SIGNING A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PARENTAGE UPON THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD; PET JEMMINGS DID NOT DISPUTE THE VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PARENTAGE WITHIN * DAYS OR WITHIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME; THE COURT FINDS THE FOLLOWING IN FAVOR OF RSP BRANHAM; RSP BRANHAM RECEIVED THE MINOR CHILD INTO HIS HOME AND OPENLY HELD THE CHILD OUT AS HIS OWN; NO OTHER PRESUMPTIONS; RSP BRANHAM DID SIGN A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEGEMENT OF PARENTAGE AND FILE IT INTO THE CASE AFTER THE COMENCEMENT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS; HOWEVER ALL PRESUMED PARENTS DID NOT CONSENT; PET JEMMINGS CONSENTED: RSP OLIVE DID NOT CONSENT; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS NO PRESUMPTIONS OF PATERNITY HAVE BEEN REBUTTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCINGEVIDENCE; THEREFORE THE COURT APPLIES A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD To ESOLVE THE COMPETING PATERNITY PRESUMPTIONS; COURT CONSIDERS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE ACCEPTED AT HEARING; AND THE PERTINENT FACTORS LISTED IN *-*-* CRS(*) (A); PET JEMMINGS FILED THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY ON AUGUST *, *; THE CHILD WAS * YEARS AND * MONTHS OLD AT THE TIME THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY WAS FILED; PET JEMMINGS BECAME AWARE THAT RSP OLIVE MAY NOT BE THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD IN *; PET BECAME AWARE BASED on THE APPEARANCE OF THE CHILD; ADDITIONALLY PET JEMMINGS HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A PERSON OTHER THAN RSP OLIVE AROUND THE TIME OF CONCEPTION;
NONETHELESS THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY WAS NOT FILED UNTIL AT LEAST
THREE EARS LATER; RSP OLIVE KNEW HE MAY NOT BE THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE
CHILD SINCE THE TIME OF CONCEPTION; NONETHLESS RSP OLIVE SIGNED A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY; RSP OLIVE CONSENTED TO BEING LISTED AS LEGAL FATHER ON THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE; AND WELCOMED THE CHILD INTO HIS HOME AS HIS NATURAL CHILD; ADDITIONALLY PET JEMMINGS AND RSP OLIVE LIVED TOGETHER AS AN INTACT FAMILY WITH THE CHILD AND THEIR TWO ADDITIONAL SHARED CHILDREN UNTIL JANUARY *; RSP OLIVE ASSERTS HE IS THE LEGAL FATHER OF THE CHILD;
PET AND RSP OLIVE LIVED TOGETHER DURING THE PREGNANCY OF THE CHILD; RSP OLIVE
WAS PRESENT AT THE BIRTH Of tHE CHILD AND THE FAMILY CONPIUNED TO LIVE
TOGETHER FOR AN ADDITIONAL * MONTHS AFTER THE CHILD WAS BORN; RSP OLIVE HAS
HAD IN PERSON CONTACT WITH THE CHILD * TO * TIMES SINCE; RSP OLIVE ASSERTS
PET JEMMINGS HAS PREVENTED HIM FROM HAVING ADDITIONAL CONTACT WITH THE CHILD; PET JEMMINGS DENIES THIS ASSERTION; THERE IS CONTESTED DR CASE REGARDING CUSTODY; PEt OLIVE IS CURRENTLY COURT ORDERED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILD; THE CHILD HAS REFERRED TO BOTH RSP OLIVE AND RSP BRANHAM AS DAD OR DADDY; RSP BRANHAM IS LEGALLY MARRIED TO A PERSON WHO IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS CASE; RSP BRANHAM HAS LIVED IN THE SAME HOME AS HIS SPOUSE; ALONG WITH PET JEMMINGS; THE CHILD OF THIS ACTION AND PET OTHER TWO CHILDREN SINCE APRIL *; RSP BRANHAM HAS ASSISTED SOMEWHAT IN FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING PET JEMMINGS AND PET THREE CHILDREN; BOTH RSP OLIVE AND RSP BRANHAM HAVE HELD THEMELES OUT TO BE THE FATHER OF THE CHILD AND WELCOMED THE CHILD INTO THEIR HOMES; BOTH HAVE A PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILD; BASED ON THE WEIGHTIER CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY AND LOGIC; THE COURT FINDS IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD TO DENY THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY AND TO DENY THE PETITION TO ESTABLISH PARENTAGE OF RSP BRANHAM; RESPONDENT DUSTIN CARROLL OLIVE IS ADJUDICATED TO-BE LEGAL FATHER OF THE MINOR CHILD; AND HAS LEGAL RIGHTS AND RESPNSIBILITIES TO THE CHILD; THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DOES NOT NEED TO BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THE COURTS FINDINGS; RSP OLIVE IS ALREADY LISTED ON THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE; RSP OLIVE AND PET JEMMINGS SHALL ADDRESS ALL PARENTING TIME AND CHILD SUPPORT MATTERS IN CASE 20DR32558; THE COURT INCORPORATES ALL FINDINGS AND ORDERS MADE ON THE RECORD INTO THIS WRITTEN ORDER; TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE ANY DISCREPANCIES THIS WRITTEN ORDER CONTROLS; CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JURISDICTION IS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS PROCEEDING; THEREFORE ANY APPEAL MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN *
DAYS PURSUANT TO COLORADO RULES FOR MAGISTRATES, RULE * (A)
CASE ON DOCKET FOR FINDINGS RE: PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY FILED BY
PETITIONER (PET) JEMMINGS AND PETITION TO ESTABLISH PARENTAGE FILED BY
VENUE AND JURISDICTION ARE PROPER; PET JEMMINGS
RESPONDENT (RSP) BRANHAM;
RESIDES IN EL PASO COUNT¥ WITH MINOR CHILD; RESPODENT (RSP) OLIVE RESIDES
IN
EL PASO COUNTY AND RSP BRANHAM RESIDES IN EL PASO COUNTY; SERVICE AND/OR
WAIVER OF SERVICE TOOK PLACE IN.COLORADO; COURT HEARD EVIDENCE ON BOTH
matters on July *, *; PET JEMMINGS TESTIFIED; RSP OLIVE TESTIFIED; RSP
BRANHAM TESTIFIED; CREDIBILITY CONCERNS WITH ALL WITNESSES; BASED ON
DEMEANOR/BEHAVIOR/TONE OF VOICE AND
EMOTIONAL RESPONSES WHILE TESTIFYING;
AS WELL AS POTENTIAL MOTIVE tO NOT BE FULLY FORTHCOMING WITH THE COURT; PET
AND RSP OLIVE SHARE * CHILDREN AND HAVE A CONTENIOUS CO-PARENTING RELATIONSHIP; RSP BRANHAM AND PET JEMMINGS ARE ROOMMATES AND FRIENDS; THE COURT DID NOT FIND ONE WITNESS TO BE MORE CREDIBLE THAN THE OThERS; THE COURT ACCEPTED THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS EXHIBIT * AND THE LAB CORP GENETIC TEST RESULTS AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENTATION AS EXHIBIT * PURSUANT TO *-*-*, C.R.S; GENETIC TEST RESULTS REFLECT A ZERO PERCENT PROBABILITY THAT RSP OLIVE IS THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD; RSP BRANHAM IS NOT
ALLEGED TO BE THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD; PET JEMMINGS IS TIMED
BARRED FROM PURSUING THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY BASED ON GENETIC
TESTING_UNDER *-*-*.*; MORE THAN TWO YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY SIGNED BY RSP OLIVE BECAME AN ADJUDICATION OF PARENTAGE PURSUANT TO *-*-*(*) (D); ADDITIONALLY RSP OLIVE TESTIFIED HE BELIEVED HE WAS NOT THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD WHEN HE SIGNED THE VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY AT THE HOSPITAL AND CONSENTED TO BEING ADDED TO THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE; THAT BEING SAID THE COURT DOES FIND PET JEMMINGS PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY IS APPROPRIATELY IN FRONT OF THE COURT PURSUANT TO *-*-*(*) (B) AND *-*-*(B) (I); NOTING THE CHLID WASUNDER THE AGE OF * WHEN THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY WAS FILED; THE COURT ALSO FINDS RSP BRANHAM IS NOT TIME BARRED FROM MOVING THE COURT TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY; THE COURT THEREFORE CONSIDERS THE PRESUMPTIONS OF
PATERNITY PURSUANT TO *-*-*; THE COURT FINDS THE FOLLOWING REGARDING
PRESUMPTIONS IN FAVOR OF RSP OLIVE; PET JEMMINGS IS THE NATURAL MOTHER OF THE
CHILD: BEFORE THE CHILDS BIRTH PET JEMMINGS AND RSP OLIVE ATTEMPTED MARRIAGE ALTHOUGH THE ATTEMPTED MARRIAGE WAS LATER DECLARED INVALID BY WAY OF A COURT ORDER; THE CHILD WAS BORN DURING THE ATTEMPTED MARRIAGE; COURT ORDER ISSUED IN 20DR32558 EL PASO COUNTY COLORADO ON AUGUST *, * RETROACTIVE; RSP OLIVE RECEIVED THE CHILD INTO HIS HOME AND OPENLY HELD THE CHILD OUT AS HIS OWN; RSP OLIVE IS LISTED ON THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE BY WAY OF SIGNING A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PARENTAGE UPON THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD; PET JEMMINGS DID NOT DISPUTE THE VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PARENTAGE WITHIN * DAYS OR WITHIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME; THE COURT FINDS THE FOLLOWING IN FAVOR OF RSP BRANHAM; RSP BRANHAM RECEIVED THE MINOR CHILD INTO HIS HOME AND OPENLY HELD THE CHILD OUT AS HIS OWN; NO OTHER PRESUMPTIONS; RSP BRANHAM DID SIGN A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEGEMENT OF PARENTAGE AND FILE IT INTO THE CASE AFTER THE COMENCEMENT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS; HOWEVER ALL PRESUMED PARENTS DID NOT CONSENT; PET JEMMINGS CONSENTED: RSP OLIVE DID NOT CONSENT; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS NO PRESUMPTIONS OF PATERNITY HAVE BEEN REBUTTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCINGEVIDENCE; THEREFORE THE COURT APPLIES A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD To ESOLVE THE COMPETING PATERNITY PRESUMPTIONS; COURT CONSIDERS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE ACCEPTED AT HEARING; AND THE PERTINENT FACTORS LISTED IN *-*-* CRS(*) (A); PET JEMMINGS FILED THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY ON AUGUST *, *; THE CHILD WAS * YEARS AND * MONTHS OLD AT THE TIME THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY WAS FILED; PET JEMMINGS BECAME AWARE THAT RSP OLIVE MAY NOT BE THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD IN *; PET BECAME AWARE BASED on THE APPEARANCE OF THE CHILD; ADDITIONALLY PET JEMMINGS HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A PERSON OTHER THAN RSP OLIVE AROUND THE TIME OF CONCEPTION;
NONETHELESS THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY WAS NOT FILED UNTIL AT LEAST
THREE EARS LATER; RSP OLIVE KNEW HE MAY NOT BE THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE
CHILD SINCE THE TIME OF CONCEPTION; NONETHLESS RSP OLIVE SIGNED A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY; RSP OLIVE CONSENTED TO BEING LISTED AS LEGAL FATHER ON THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE; AND WELCOMED THE CHILD INTO HIS HOME AS HIS NATURAL CHILD; ADDITIONALLY PET JEMMINGS AND RSP OLIVE LIVED TOGETHER AS AN INTACT FAMILY WITH THE CHILD AND THEIR TWO ADDITIONAL SHARED CHILDREN UNTIL JANUARY *; RSP OLIVE ASSERTS HE IS THE LEGAL FATHER OF THE CHILD;
PET AND RSP OLIVE LIVED TOGETHER DURING THE PREGNANCY OF THE CHILD; RSP OLIVE
WAS PRESENT AT THE BIRTH Of tHE CHILD AND THE FAMILY CONPIUNED TO LIVE
TOGETHER FOR AN ADDITIONAL * MONTHS AFTER THE CHILD WAS BORN; RSP OLIVE HAS
HAD IN PERSON CONTACT WITH THE CHILD * TO * TIMES SINCE; RSP OLIVE ASSERTS
PET JEMMINGS HAS PREVENTED HIM FROM HAVING ADDITIONAL CONTACT WITH THE CHILD; PET JEMMINGS DENIES THIS ASSERTION; THERE IS CONTESTED DR CASE REGARDING CUSTODY; PEt OLIVE IS CURRENTLY COURT ORDERED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILD; THE CHILD HAS REFERRED TO BOTH RSP OLIVE AND RSP BRANHAM AS DAD OR DADDY; RSP BRANHAM IS LEGALLY MARRIED TO A PERSON WHO IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS CASE; RSP BRANHAM HAS LIVED IN THE SAME HOME AS HIS SPOUSE; ALONG WITH PET JEMMINGS; THE CHILD OF THIS ACTION AND PET OTHER TWO CHILDREN SINCE APRIL *; RSP BRANHAM HAS ASSISTED SOMEWHAT IN FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING PET JEMMINGS AND PET THREE CHILDREN; BOTH RSP OLIVE AND RSP BRANHAM HAVE HELD THEMELES OUT TO BE THE FATHER OF THE CHILD AND WELCOMED THE CHILD INTO THEIR HOMES; BOTH HAVE A PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILD; BASED ON THE WEIGHTIER CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY AND LOGIC; THE COURT FINDS IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD TO DENY THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY AND TO DENY THE PETITION TO ESTABLISH PARENTAGE OF RSP BRANHAM; RESPONDENT DUSTIN CARROLL OLIVE IS ADJUDICATED TO-BE LEGAL FATHER OF THE MINOR CHILD; AND HAS LEGAL RIGHTS AND RESPNSIBILITIES TO THE CHILD; THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DOES NOT NEED TO BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THE COURTS FINDINGS; RSP OLIVE IS ALREADY LISTED ON THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE; RSP OLIVE AND PET JEMMINGS SHALL ADDRESS ALL PARENTING TIME AND CHILD SUPPORT MATTERS IN CASE 20DR32558; THE COURT INCORPORATES ALL FINDINGS AND ORDERS MADE ON THE RECORD INTO THIS WRITTEN ORDER; TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE ANY DISCREPANCIES THIS WRITTEN ORDER CONTROLS; CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JURISDICTION IS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS PROCEEDING; THEREFORE ANY APPEAL MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN *
DAYS PURSUANT TO COLORADO RULES FOR MAGISTRATES, RULE * (A)
CASE ON DOCKET FOR FINDINGS RE: PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY FILED BY
PETITIONER (PET) JEMMINGS AND PETITION TO ESTABLISH PARENTAGE FILED BY
VENUE AND JURISDICTION ARE PROPER; PET JEMMINGS
RESPONDENT (RSP) BRANHAM;
RESIDES IN EL PASO COUNT¥ WITH MINOR CHILD; RESPODENT (RSP) OLIVE RESIDES
IN
EL PASO COUNTY AND RSP BRANHAM RESIDES IN EL PASO COUNTY; SERVICE AND/OR
WAIVER OF SERVICE TOOK PLACE IN.COLORADO; COURT HEARD EVIDENCE ON BOTH
matters on July *, *; PET JEMMINGS TESTIFIED; RSP OLIVE TESTIFIED; RSP
BRANHAM TESTIFIED; CREDIBILITY CONCERNS WITH ALL WITNESSES; BASED ON
DEMEANOR/BEHAVIOR/TONE OF VOICE AND
EMOTIONAL RESPONSES WHILE TESTIFYING;
AS WELL AS POTENTIAL MOTIVE tO NOT BE FULLY FORTHCOMING WITH THE COURT; PET
AND RSP OLIVE SHARE * CHILDREN AND HAVE A CONTENIOUS CO-PARENTING RELATIONSHIP; RSP BRANHAM AND PET JEMMINGS ARE ROOMMATES AND FRIENDS; THE COURT DID NOT FIND ONE WITNESS TO BE MORE CREDIBLE THAN THE OThERS; THE COURT ACCEPTED THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS EXHIBIT * AND THE LAB CORP GENETIC TEST RESULTS AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENTATION AS EXHIBIT * PURSUANT TO *-*-*, C.R.S; GENETIC TEST RESULTS REFLECT A ZERO PERCENT PROBABILITY THAT RSP OLIVE IS THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD; RSP BRANHAM IS NOT
ALLEGED TO BE THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD; PET JEMMINGS IS TIMED
BARRED FROM PURSUING THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY BASED ON GENETIC
TESTING_UNDER *-*-*.*; MORE THAN TWO YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY SIGNED BY RSP OLIVE BECAME AN ADJUDICATION OF PARENTAGE PURSUANT TO *-*-*(*) (D); ADDITIONALLY RSP OLIVE TESTIFIED HE BELIEVED HE WAS NOT THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD WHEN HE SIGNED THE VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY AT THE HOSPITAL AND CONSENTED TO BEING ADDED TO THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE; THAT BEING SAID THE COURT DOES FIND PET JEMMINGS PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY IS APPROPRIATELY IN FRONT OF THE COURT PURSUANT TO *-*-*(*) (B) AND *-*-*(B) (I); NOTING THE CHLID WASUNDER THE AGE OF * WHEN THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY WAS FILED; THE COURT ALSO FINDS RSP BRANHAM IS NOT TIME BARRED FROM MOVING THE COURT TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY; THE COURT THEREFORE CONSIDERS THE PRESUMPTIONS OF
PATERNITY PURSUANT TO *-*-*; THE COURT FINDS THE FOLLOWING REGARDING
PRESUMPTIONS IN FAVOR OF RSP OLIVE; PET JEMMINGS IS THE NATURAL MOTHER OF THE
CHILD: BEFORE THE CHILDS BIRTH PET JEMMINGS AND RSP OLIVE ATTEMPTED MARRIAGE ALTHOUGH THE ATTEMPTED MARRIAGE WAS LATER DECLARED INVALID BY WAY OF A COURT ORDER; THE CHILD WAS BORN DURING THE ATTEMPTED MARRIAGE; COURT ORDER ISSUED IN 20DR32558 EL PASO COUNTY COLORADO ON AUGUST *, * RETROACTIVE; RSP OLIVE RECEIVED THE CHILD INTO HIS HOME AND OPENLY HELD THE CHILD OUT AS HIS OWN; RSP OLIVE IS LISTED ON THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE BY WAY OF SIGNING A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PARENTAGE UPON THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD; PET JEMMINGS DID NOT DISPUTE THE VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PARENTAGE WITHIN * DAYS OR WITHIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME; THE COURT FINDS THE FOLLOWING IN FAVOR OF RSP BRANHAM; RSP BRANHAM RECEIVED THE MINOR CHILD INTO HIS HOME AND OPENLY HELD THE CHILD OUT AS HIS OWN; NO OTHER PRESUMPTIONS; RSP BRANHAM DID SIGN A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEGEMENT OF PARENTAGE AND FILE IT INTO THE CASE AFTER THE COMENCEMENT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS; HOWEVER ALL PRESUMED PARENTS DID NOT CONSENT; PET JEMMINGS CONSENTED: RSP OLIVE DID NOT CONSENT; THE COURT FURTHER FINDS NO PRESUMPTIONS OF PATERNITY HAVE BEEN REBUTTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCINGEVIDENCE; THEREFORE THE COURT APPLIES A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD To ESOLVE THE COMPETING PATERNITY PRESUMPTIONS; COURT CONSIDERS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE ACCEPTED AT HEARING; AND THE PERTINENT FACTORS LISTED IN *-*-* CRS(*) (A); PET JEMMINGS FILED THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY ON AUGUST *, *; THE CHILD WAS * YEARS AND * MONTHS OLD AT THE TIME THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY WAS FILED; PET JEMMINGS BECAME AWARE THAT RSP OLIVE MAY NOT BE THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD IN *; PET BECAME AWARE BASED on THE APPEARANCE OF THE CHILD; ADDITIONALLY PET JEMMINGS HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A PERSON OTHER THAN RSP OLIVE AROUND THE TIME OF CONCEPTION;
NONETHELESS THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY WAS NOT FILED UNTIL AT LEAST
THREE EARS LATER; RSP OLIVE KNEW HE MAY NOT BE THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE
CHILD SINCE THE TIME OF CONCEPTION; NONETHLESS RSP OLIVE SIGNED A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY; RSP OLIVE CONSENTED TO BEING LISTED AS LEGAL FATHER ON THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE; AND WELCOMED THE CHILD INTO HIS HOME AS HIS NATURAL CHILD; ADDITIONALLY PET JEMMINGS AND RSP OLIVE LIVED TOGETHER AS AN INTACT FAMILY WITH THE CHILD AND THEIR TWO ADDITIONAL SHARED CHILDREN UNTIL JANUARY *; RSP OLIVE ASSERTS HE IS THE LEGAL FATHER OF THE CHILD;
PET AND RSP OLIVE LIVED TOGETHER DURING THE PREGNANCY OF THE CHILD; RSP OLIVE
WAS PRESENT AT THE BIRTH Of tHE CHILD AND THE FAMILY CONPIUNED TO LIVE
TOGETHER FOR AN ADDITIONAL * MONTHS AFTER THE CHILD WAS BORN; RSP OLIVE HAS
HAD IN PERSON CONTACT WITH THE CHILD * TO * TIMES SINCE; RSP OLIVE ASSERTS
PET JEMMINGS HAS PREVENTED HIM FROM HAVING ADDITIONAL CONTACT WITH THE CHILD; PET JEMMINGS DENIES THIS ASSERTION; THERE IS CONTESTED DR CASE REGARDING CUSTODY; PEt OLIVE IS CURRENTLY COURT ORDERED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILD; THE CHILD HAS REFERRED TO BOTH RSP OLIVE AND RSP BRANHAM AS DAD OR DADDY; RSP BRANHAM IS LEGALLY MARRIED TO A PERSON WHO IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS CASE; RSP BRANHAM HAS LIVED IN THE SAME HOME AS HIS SPOUSE; ALONG WITH PET JEMMINGS; THE CHILD OF THIS ACTION AND PET OTHER TWO CHILDREN SINCE APRIL *; RSP BRANHAM HAS ASSISTED SOMEWHAT IN FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING PET JEMMINGS AND PET THREE CHILDREN; BOTH RSP OLIVE AND RSP BRANHAM HAVE HELD THEMELES OUT TO BE THE FATHER OF THE CHILD AND WELCOMED THE CHILD INTO THEIR HOMES; BOTH HAVE A PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILD; BASED ON THE WEIGHTIER CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY AND LOGIC; THE COURT FINDS IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD TO DENY THE PETITION TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY AND TO DENY THE PETITION TO ESTABLISH PARENTAGE OF RSP BRANHAM; RESPONDENT DUSTIN CARROLL OLIVE IS ADJUDICATED TO-BE LEGAL FATHER OF THE MINOR CHILD; AND HAS LEGAL RIGHTS AND RESPNSIBILITIES TO THE CHILD; THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DOES NOT NEED TO BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THE COURTS FINDINGS; RSP OLIVE IS ALREADY LISTED ON THE CHILDS BIRTH CERTIFICATE; RSP OLIVE AND PET JEMMINGS SHALL ADDRESS ALL PARENTING TIME AND CHILD SUPPORT MATTERS IN CASE 20DR32558; THE COURT INCORPORATES ALL FINDINGS AND ORDERS MADE ON THE RECORD INTO THIS WRITTEN ORDER; TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE ANY DISCREPANCIES THIS WRITTEN ORDER CONTROLS; CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JURISDICTION IS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS PROCEEDING; THEREFORE ANY APPEAL MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN *
DAYS PURSUANT TO COLORADO RULES FOR MAGISTRATES, RULE * (A)
Hi Ash! To assist you effectively, could you clarify if you already have evidence proving Mr. Olive’s fraud and misrepresentation about signing the Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VOP)? This will help in drafting the motion accurately.
i have requested it but the timeline wont be within 182 days from the order, however in colorado unless parents are not married they dont do a vop, im requesting an affidavit from the hospital
Thank you for the details, Ash. To assist you with your motion for a new trial, here are some key points to include based on your situation:
- **Grounds for New Trial:** Highlight newly discovered evidence and fraud, especially Mr. Olive's false testimony about the VOP.
- **Evidence:** Emphasize that the affidavit from the hospital is pending but crucial. Mention it's requested and expected.
- **Legal References:** Cite C.R.C.P. *(d)(*), *(b)(*), and relevant cases like Buchanan v. Burgess and People v. McNeely.
- **Timeline:** Note any delays in obtaining evidence and explain their reasons.
Would you like more specific guidance on drafting this motion?
- **Grounds for New Trial:** Highlight newly discovered evidence and fraud, especially Mr. Olive's false testimony about the VOP.
- **Evidence:** Emphasize that the affidavit from the hospital is pending but crucial. Mention it's requested and expected.
- **Legal References:** Cite C.R.C.P. *(d)(*), *(b)(*), and relevant cases like Buchanan v. Burgess and People v. McNeely.
- **Timeline:** Note any delays in obtaining evidence and explain their reasons.
Would you like more specific guidance on drafting this motion?
yes
Sure, Ash. Here are some concise points to include for drafting your motion:
- **Introduction:**
- State your name and case details.
- Mention the request for a new trial under C.R.C.P. * and *(b)(*).
- **Grounds for New Trial:**
- Detail fraud and misrepresentation by Mr. Olive.
- Highlight newly discovered evidence impacting trial integrity.
- **Evidence:**
- Include any existing evidence of fraud.
- Mention the pending hospital affidavit and its importance.
- **Legal References:**
- Cite C.R.C.P *(d)(*) and *(b)(*).
- Reference Buchanan v. Burgess and People v. McNeely.
- **Conclusion:**
- Summarize the need for a new trial based on the evidence and legal grounds.
Would you like help with any specific section?
- **Introduction:**
- State your name and case details.
- Mention the request for a new trial under C.R.C.P. * and *(b)(*).
- **Grounds for New Trial:**
- Detail fraud and misrepresentation by Mr. Olive.
- Highlight newly discovered evidence impacting trial integrity.
- **Evidence:**
- Include any existing evidence of fraud.
- Mention the pending hospital affidavit and its importance.
- **Legal References:**
- Cite C.R.C.P *(d)(*) and *(b)(*).
- Reference Buchanan v. Burgess and People v. McNeely.
- **Conclusion:**
- Summarize the need for a new trial based on the evidence and legal grounds.
Would you like help with any specific section?
yes, grounds for new trial
Certainly, Ash. Here is a concise outline for the "Grounds for New Trial" section:
Grounds for New Trial
- **Fraud and Misrepresentation:**
- Mr. Olive falsely testified about signing the Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VOP).
- He knowingly misrepresented his acknowledgment, impacting the court's decision.
- **Newly Discovered Evidence:**
- Evidence that Mr. Olive lied about the VOP has recently come to light.
- This evidence was unavailable during the trial despite reasonable diligence.
- **Credibility Concerns:**
- Mr. Olive's false testimony raises significant doubts about his credibility, affecting the trial's outcome.
- **Legal Basis:**
- C.R.C.P. *(d)(*): New trial warranted for newly discovered material evidence.
- C.R.C.P. *(b)(*): Relief for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct.
Would you like further assistance with any other section?
- **Fraud and Misrepresentation:**
- Mr. Olive falsely testified about signing the Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VOP).
- He knowingly misrepresented his acknowledgment, impacting the court's decision.
- **Newly Discovered Evidence:**
- Evidence that Mr. Olive lied about the VOP has recently come to light.
- This evidence was unavailable during the trial despite reasonable diligence.
- **Credibility Concerns:**
- Mr. Olive's false testimony raises significant doubts about his credibility, affecting the trial's outcome.
- **Legal Basis:**
- C.R.C.P. *(d)(*): New trial warranted for newly discovered material evidence.
- C.R.C.P. *(b)(*): Relief for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct.
Would you like further assistance with any other section?
how will this change the courts decision
Ash, emphasizing these points might influence the court's decision:
- **Fraud and Misrepresentation:** Mr. Olive's false testimony about the VOP directly impacts the integrity of the trial.
- **Newly Discovered Evidence:** The pending affidavit substantiates the fraud, which was unavailable during the trial.
- **Credibility Concerns:** Highlighting Mr. Olive's lack of credibility may lead the court to reconsider its previous determination.
Would you like further assistance with another aspect of your motion?
- **Fraud and Misrepresentation:** Mr. Olive's false testimony about the VOP directly impacts the integrity of the trial.
- **Newly Discovered Evidence:** The pending affidavit substantiates the fraud, which was unavailable during the trial.
- **Credibility Concerns:** Highlighting Mr. Olive's lack of credibility may lead the court to reconsider its previous determination.
Would you like further assistance with another aspect of your motion?
i also requested the acknowledgement of paternity from office of vital records but they are months out
Ash, while waiting for the acknowledgment of paternity from the Office of Vital Records, consider emphasizing these points in your motion:
- **Pending Evidence:** Mention the delayed acknowledgment and its critical role in proving fraud.
- **Reasonable Diligence:** Explain your efforts to obtain the evidence promptly.
- **Impact on Decision:** Stress how this evidence could significantly alter the court’s judgment.
Would you like more detailed guidance on drafting this part of the motion?
- **Pending Evidence:** Mention the delayed acknowledgment and its critical role in proving fraud.
- **Reasonable Diligence:** Explain your efforts to obtain the evidence promptly.
- **Impact on Decision:** Stress how this evidence could significantly alter the court’s judgment.
Would you like more detailed guidance on drafting this part of the motion?
yes
Certainly, Ash. Here is a detailed outline for including the pending acknowledgment of paternity in your motion:
Pending Evidence and Its Impact on the Court’s Decision
- **Pending Evidence:**
- State that you have requested the acknowledgment of paternity from the Office of Vital Records.
- Mention the expected delay and the reasons for it.
- **Importance of Evidence:**
- Explain that this document is crucial to proving Mr. Olive's fraud and misrepresentation.
- Highlight how the acknowledgment will demonstrate his false testimony about the Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VOP).
- **Efforts to Obtain Evidence:**
- Detail the steps you have taken to obtain the acknowledgment promptly.
- Include any correspondence or follow-up actions with the Office of Vital Records.
- **Impact on Decision:**
- Argue that this pending evidence could significantly alter the court’s determination of paternity.
- Stress that the acknowledgment, once obtained, will provide clear and convincing evidence of fraud.
Would you like help with any other section or additional details for this part?
- **Pending Evidence:**
- State that you have requested the acknowledgment of paternity from the Office of Vital Records.
- Mention the expected delay and the reasons for it.
- **Importance of Evidence:**
- Explain that this document is crucial to proving Mr. Olive's fraud and misrepresentation.
- Highlight how the acknowledgment will demonstrate his false testimony about the Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VOP).
- **Efforts to Obtain Evidence:**
- Detail the steps you have taken to obtain the acknowledgment promptly.
- Include any correspondence or follow-up actions with the Office of Vital Records.
- **Impact on Decision:**
- Argue that this pending evidence could significantly alter the court’s determination of paternity.
- Stress that the acknowledgment, once obtained, will provide clear and convincing evidence of fraud.
Would you like help with any other section or additional details for this part?
is it fraud or misrepresentation?
Hi Ash! Based on the information you've provided, it appears to involve both fraud and misrepresentation. Here’s how it breaks down:
- **Fraud:** Mr. Olive’s deliberate false testimony about the Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VOP) can be considered fraud because he knowingly provided false information which influenced the court’s decision.
- **Misrepresentation:** His false statements about signing the VOP and knowing he was not the father constitute misrepresentation as they misled the court regarding his paternity status.
Would you need further clarification or assistance on another aspect of your case?
- **Fraud:** Mr. Olive’s deliberate false testimony about the Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VOP) can be considered fraud because he knowingly provided false information which influenced the court’s decision.
- **Misrepresentation:** His false statements about signing the VOP and knowing he was not the father constitute misrepresentation as they misled the court regarding his paternity status.
Would you need further clarification or assistance on another aspect of your case?
check this for accuracy *. Timeliness of Petition to Disclaim Paternity
Court’s Finding:
• The court found Petitioner (Pet) Jemmings time-barred from pursuing the petition to disclaim paternity based on genetic testing under C.R.S. § *-*-*.*, as more than two years had passed since the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity (VAP) was signed.
Arguments:
• False Testimony or Misunderstanding by the Court:
o Critical Error: The court’s reliance on RSP Olive's testimony that he signed a VAP may be a critical error if no such document exists. This could undermine the court's findings based on the legal presumption of paternity stemming from the VAP. The court may have misunderstood the evidence or was misled by incorrect testimony, which should invalidate any conclusions drawn from this assumption.
• Lack of Legal Documentation:
o Missing VAP: If no VAP was signed, the court’s presumption of RSP Olive’s paternity lacks a solid legal foundation. The court should have required clear and convincing evidence, such as the actual VAP document, before making a determination. The absence of this document could be grounds to argue that the court erred in its legal reasoning.
• Impact on Paternity Presumptions:
o Weakened Presumption: The lack of a VAP weakens the presumption of paternity in favor of RSP Olive. Since the marriage between Pet Jemmings and RSP Olive was declared invalid, and without a valid VAP, the court should have considered other factors more heavily, such as the genetic evidence excluding RSP Olive as the biological father.
• Misapplication of Statutes:
o Incorrect Application: The court’s application of C.R.S. § *-*-* regarding the presumption of paternity may be incorrect if it was based on the mistaken belief that a VAP was signed. The court may have misapplied the statute by relying on a non-existent document to establish paternity, questioning the validity of the entire ruling.
Strategic Approach:
*. Request Verification: Request that the court review whether the VAP was ever signed or entered into the record. If it wasn’t, this could be a significant point in arguing that the court’s findings were based on inaccurate information.
*. Emphasize Genetic Evidence: Highlight that without a signed VAP, the genetic test results excluding RSP Olive as the biological father should carry more weight in determining paternity.
*. Reassess Best Interest of the Child: Argue that the court’s best interest analysis may be flawed if it was predicated on incorrect legal assumptions regarding the VAP and paternity.
Inconsistency in Court’s Findings:
• The court also noted that the petition to disclaim paternity was appropriately before the court under C.R.S. § *-*-*(*)(b) and § *-*-*(b)(i), given that the child was under the age of five. This apparent inconsistency may warrant further examination, particularly focusing on whether the court erred in its interpretation of the statute or failed to consider relevant case law that might allow for an exception.
*. Credibility of Witnesses
Court’s Finding:
• The judge found credibility concerns with all witnesses, leading to a decision that relied heavily on legal presumptions rather than clear and convincing evidence.
Arguments:
• Highlighting Credibility Issues:
o Acknowledgment of Credibility Issues: The court acknowledged credibility concerns with all witnesses, noting their demeanor, behavior, tone of voice, and emotional responses raised red flags. This suggests the judge recognized potential biases, inconsistencies, or motives that might have influenced the testimony.
• Critiquing Equal Weight Given to Testimonies:
o Error in Weighing Testimonies: The court erred in giving equal weight to all testimonies despite acknowledging credibility issues. When witness credibility is compromised, the court should scrutinize the evidence more carefully, particularly objective evidence like genetic testing.
• Emphasizing Genetic Test Results:
o Objective Evidence: The genetic test results are clear, scientific evidence showing a *% probability that RSP Olive is the biological father. This evidence should have been given more weight, particularly given the credibility issues with the witnesses.
• Questioning Legal Presumptions:
o Inappropriate Reliance: The court’s reliance on legal presumptions was inappropriate given the availability of clear and convincing evidence (genetic test results) that contradicted the presumption that RSP Olive was the father.
• Impact on the Child’s Best Interests:
o Best Interest Analysis: The court’s decision based on legal presumptions rather than genetic evidence may not reflect the best interest of the child. The appeal could argue that the court’s decision, based on flawed credibility assessments and overreliance on legal presumptions, does not adequately protect those interests.
*. Legal Presumptions of Paternity
Court’s Finding:
• The judge applied a preponderance of the evidence standard to resolve competing paternity presumptions.
Arguments:
• Understanding Legal Presumptions of Paternity Under Colorado Law:
o Background: Colorado law creates legal presumptions of paternity under C.R.S. § *-*-*, which are rebuttable with clear and convincing evidence.
• Application of the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard:
o Inadequate Standard: The judge’s application of the preponderance of the evidence standard may have been inadequate given the availability of clear genetic evidence, which should have rebutted the legal presumption of paternity in favor of RSP Olive.
• Rebuttal of Legal Presumptions with Genetic Evidence:
o Rebuttal Argument: The court acknowledged the genetic test results showing a *% probability that RSP Olive is the biological father. This clear and convincing evidence should have rebutted the legal presumption of paternity in favor of RSP Olive.
• Prioritizing the Best Interest of the Child:
o Best Interest Standard: The best interest of the child standard should prioritize the child’s need for stable relationships and understanding of biological parentage, which the court failed to adequately consider.
*. Denial of Petition to Establish Parentage
Court’s Finding:
• The court denied the petition to establish parentage for RSP Branham despite acknowledging his role in the child’s life.
Arguments:
• Recognition of the Established Parent-Child Relationship:
o Acknowledged Role: The court recognized RSP Branham’s established role in the child’s life but denied his petition, potentially disregarding the significance of this bond.
• Holistic Assessment of the Child's Welfare:
o Holistic Approach: The court failed to conduct a holistic assessment of the child’s welfare, considering not only legal presumptions but also the emotional and psychological impacts of the decision.
• The Child’s Right to Maintain Established Relationships:
o Child’s Rights: The court’s decision failed to recognize the importance of maintaining established relationships, particularly with figures who have acted as parental figures.
• Balancing Competing Presumptions of Paternity:
o Competing Presumptions: The court failed to balance competing presumptions of paternity, overemphasizing RSP Olive’s legal presumptions without considering RSP Branham’s active involvement in the child’s life.
• Failure to Consider the Psychological Parent Doctrine:
o Psychological Parent: The court may have overlooked the concept of the psychological parent, which recognizes individuals who have developed parent-like relationships with the child.
• Impact on the Child’s Stability:
o Stability: The denial of RSP Branham’s petition could negatively impact the child’s stability and emotional security.
*. Best Interest of the Child
Court’s Finding:
• The court ruled it was in the child’s best interest to deny both the petition to disclaim paternity and the petition to establish parentage.
Arguments:
• Court’s Justification:
o Lack of Justification: The court did not adequately justify how maintaining RSP Olive’s paternity, despite genetic evidence and conflicting evidence regarding the child’s relationship with both men, serves the child’s best interests.
• Impact of Genetic Evidence:
o Importance of Genetic Evidence: The court failed to adequately consider the genetic evidence’s impact on the child’s best interests, potentially leading to future psychological harm.
• Conflicting Evidence About the Child’s Relationship with Both Men:
o Relationship Consideration: The court did not properly weigh the conflicting evidence regarding the child’s relationships with RSP Olive and RSP Branham.
• Stability and Continuity of Relationships:
o Stability Evaluation: The court failed to evaluate the stability and continuity of the child’s relationships with both men, which should have been a critical factor in its decision.
• Long-Term Implications for the Child’s Well-Being:
o Future Consideration: The court’s decision did not adequately consider the long-term implications for the child’s well-being, including the potential psychological impact of maintaining RSP Olive’s paternity.
*. Inconsistencies and Legal Errors
Arguments:
• Discrepancies Between Oral Findings and Written Order:
o Identifying Discrepancies: The appeal should identify discrepancies between the judge’s oral findings and the written order, which could undermine the fairness and transparency of the court’s decision-making process.
• Legal Implications of Discrepancies:
o Legal Insufficiency: Discrepancies between oral findings and the written order may render the order legally insufficient or procedurally flawed.
• Misapplication of Legal Standards:
o VAP Misapplication: The court may have misapplied C.R.S. § *-*-* by relying on RSP Olive’s VAP despite his admission of potential non-paternity, failing to properly evaluate the VAP’s validity.
o Failure to Consider Clear and Convincing Evidence: The court erred by not giving sufficient weight to the genetic evidence, which should have rebutted the presumption created by the VAP.
o Overreliance on Legal Presumptions: The court may have over-relied on legal presumptions, failing to balance them with the best interest of the child and other clear evidence.
Conclusion and Request for Relief:
• Argument Summary: The appeal should summarize the inconsistencies and legal errors, emphasizing that they warrant a reversal or remand of the decision.
• Request for Relief: Request that the appellate court overturn the trial court’s decision or remand the case for reconsideration with instructions to correct the legal errors and ensure consistency between oral and written findings.
*. Appeal Procedure
Note:
• Ensure the appeal is filed within the *-day timeframe specified by Colorado Rules for Magistrates, Rule *(a). The appeal should focus on errors of law or procedure, rather than rearguing the facts of the case unless directly related to the alleged legal errors.
Ash, your summary looks comprehensive and addresses key legal points. Here are a few adjustments for clarity and accuracy:
*. **Timeliness of Petition to Disclaim Paternity**
- **Court’s Finding:**
- The court found Petitioner Jemmings time-barred from pursuing the petition to disclaim paternity based on genetic testing under C.R.S. § *-*-*.*, as more than two years had passed since the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity (VAP) was signed.
- **Arguments:**
- **False Testimony or Misunderstanding by the Court:**
- The court’s reliance on RSP Olive's testimony that he signed a VAP may be a critical error if no such document exists. This could undermine the court's findings based on the legal presumption of paternity stemming from the VAP.
- **Lack of Legal Documentation:**
- If no VAP was signed, the court’s presumption of RSP Olive’s paternity lacks a solid legal foundation. The court should have required clear and convincing evidence, such as the actual VAP document, before making a determination.
- **Impact on Paternity Presumptions:**
- The lack of a VAP
*. **Timeliness of Petition to Disclaim Paternity**
- **Court’s Finding:**
- The court found Petitioner Jemmings time-barred from pursuing the petition to disclaim paternity based on genetic testing under C.R.S. § *-*-*.*, as more than two years had passed since the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity (VAP) was signed.
- **Arguments:**
- **False Testimony or Misunderstanding by the Court:**
- The court’s reliance on RSP Olive's testimony that he signed a VAP may be a critical error if no such document exists. This could undermine the court's findings based on the legal presumption of paternity stemming from the VAP.
- **Lack of Legal Documentation:**
- If no VAP was signed, the court’s presumption of RSP Olive’s paternity lacks a solid legal foundation. The court should have required clear and convincing evidence, such as the actual VAP document, before making a determination.
- **Impact on Paternity Presumptions:**
- The lack of a VAP
does this address all info in the minute order?
Yes, Ash, your summary comprehensively addresses the key legal points and arguments related to the minute order. Here are some final adjustments and inclusions to ensure all essential information is covered:
*. **Timeliness of Petition to Disclaim Paternity**
- **Court’s Finding:**
- The court found Petitioner Jemmings time-barred from pursuing the petition to disclaim paternity based on genetic testing under C.R.S. § *-*-*.*, as more than two years had passed since the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity (VAP) was signed.
- **Arguments:**
- **False Testimony or Misunderstanding by the Court:**
- The court’s reliance on RSP Olive's testimony that he signed a VAP may be a critical error if no such document exists. This could undermine the court's findings based on the legal presumption of paternity stemming from the VAP.
- **Lack of Legal Documentation:**
- If no VAP was signed, the court’s presumption of RSP Olive’s paternity lacks a solid legal foundation. The court should have required clear and convincing evidence, such as the actual VAP document, before making a determination.
- **Impact on
*. **Timeliness of Petition to Disclaim Paternity**
- **Court’s Finding:**
- The court found Petitioner Jemmings time-barred from pursuing the petition to disclaim paternity based on genetic testing under C.R.S. § *-*-*.*, as more than two years had passed since the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity (VAP) was signed.
- **Arguments:**
- **False Testimony or Misunderstanding by the Court:**
- The court’s reliance on RSP Olive's testimony that he signed a VAP may be a critical error if no such document exists. This could undermine the court's findings based on the legal presumption of paternity stemming from the VAP.
- **Lack of Legal Documentation:**
- If no VAP was signed, the court’s presumption of RSP Olive’s paternity lacks a solid legal foundation. The court should have required clear and convincing evidence, such as the actual VAP document, before making a determination.
- **Impact on
if there was misunderstanding during the trial, can rsp branham make clarifications?
Hi Ash! Yes, if there was a misunderstanding during the trial, RSP Branham can file a motion to clarify or correct the record. Here are some steps and points to consider:
*. **File a Motion for Clarification:**
- **Purpose:** Request the court to clarify any misunderstandings or correct inaccuracies in the trial record.
- **Content:** Clearly state the specific misunderstandings or inaccuracies and provide evidence or statements to support the corrections.
*. **Provide Supporting Evidence:**
- **Documentation:** Include any new or pending evidence, such as affidavits or documents from the Office of Vital Records, that support your clarifications.
- **Testimonies:** If possible, include statements or affidavits from witnesses who can clarify the issues.
*. **Reference Relevant Legal Standards:**
- **C.R.C.P. *(b):** Mention the rule that allows for relief from a judgment or order due to mistakes, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
Would you like more detailed guidance on drafting the motion for clarification?
*. **File a Motion for Clarification:**
- **Purpose:** Request the court to clarify any misunderstandings or correct inaccuracies in the trial record.
- **Content:** Clearly state the specific misunderstandings or inaccuracies and provide evidence or statements to support the corrections.
*. **Provide Supporting Evidence:**
- **Documentation:** Include any new or pending evidence, such as affidavits or documents from the Office of Vital Records, that support your clarifications.
- **Testimonies:** If possible, include statements or affidavits from witnesses who can clarify the issues.
*. **Reference Relevant Legal Standards:**
- **C.R.C.P. *(b):** Mention the rule that allows for relief from a judgment or order due to mistakes, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
Would you like more detailed guidance on drafting the motion for clarification?
what about if the judge pushed for a timeline but I said I wasn't sure, and she used the pressured timeline in calculations
Hi Ash! If the judge pushed for a timeline and you expressed uncertainty, but it was still used in the court's calculations, you may have grounds to request a reconsideration or clarification. Here are some steps to address this issue:
*. **File a Motion for Reconsideration:**
- **Purpose:** Request the court to reconsider its decision based on the pressured timeline.
- **Content:** Explain that you were uncertain about the timeline and felt pressured. Highlight how this affected the court's calculations and final decision.
*. **Emphasize Your Uncertainty:**
- **Clarification:** Clearly state that you expressed uncertainty about the timeline during the trial.
- **Impact:** Describe how the incorrect timeline has materially affected the court’s judgment.
*. **Provide Any Correct Information:**
- **Correct Timeline:** If you have more accurate information about the timeline, include it in your motion.
- **Supporting Evidence:** Attach any relevant documents or affidavits that support the correct timeline.
*. **Reference Relevant Legal Standards:**
- **C.R.C.P. *(b):** Cite the rule that allows for relief from a judgment or order due to mistakes, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, emphasizing the pressured timeline as
*. **File a Motion for Reconsideration:**
- **Purpose:** Request the court to reconsider its decision based on the pressured timeline.
- **Content:** Explain that you were uncertain about the timeline and felt pressured. Highlight how this affected the court's calculations and final decision.
*. **Emphasize Your Uncertainty:**
- **Clarification:** Clearly state that you expressed uncertainty about the timeline during the trial.
- **Impact:** Describe how the incorrect timeline has materially affected the court’s judgment.
*. **Provide Any Correct Information:**
- **Correct Timeline:** If you have more accurate information about the timeline, include it in your motion.
- **Supporting Evidence:** Attach any relevant documents or affidavits that support the correct timeline.
*. **Reference Relevant Legal Standards:**
- **C.R.C.P. *(b):** Cite the rule that allows for relief from a judgment or order due to mistakes, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, emphasizing the pressured timeline as
can you help write a motion for clarification? during the trial, the judge asked rsp branham if we were in a relationship, Mr branham thought she meant sexualt, not that we were in a raising a family together relationship. also scott was asked if he ever saw dustin treat the kids badly and scott said no he's never seen dustin not treat the kids well(because he never saw much, it was only in passing)
*. **File a Motion for Clarification:**
- **Purpose:** Request the court to clarify any misunderstandings or correct inaccuracies in the trial record.
- **Content:** Clearly state the specific misunderstandings or inaccuracies and provide evidence or statements to support the corrections.
*. **Provide Supporting Evidence:**
- **Documentation:** Include any new or pending evidence, such as affidavits or documents from the Office of Vital Records, that support your clarifications.
- **Testimonies:** If possible, include statements or affidavits from witnesses who can clarify the issues.
*. **Reference Relevant Legal Standards:**
- **C.R.C.P. *(b):** Mention the rule that allows for relief from a judgment or order due to mistakes, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
Certainly, Ash. Here is a concise draft for your motion for clarification:
---
**[Your Name]**
**[Your Address]**
**[City, State, ZIP Code]**
**[Phone Number]**
**[Email Address]**
**[Date]**
**[Court Name]**
**[Court Address]**
**[City, State, ZIP Code]**
**Re: [Case Name], Case No. [Case Number]**
**Motion for Clarification**
**Introduction:**
Petitioner, [Your Name], respectfully requests the court to clarify certain misunderstandings that occurred during the trial. This motion is made pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure *(b).
**Grounds for Clarification:**
*. **Misunderstanding Regarding Relationship:**
- During the trial, the judge asked RSP Branham if we were in a relationship. RSP Branham understood this question to refer to a sexual relationship, whereas the intended context was our relationship in raising a family together.
*. **Misunderstanding Regarding Testimony on Child Treatment:**
- Scott was asked if he ever saw Dustin treat the kids badly. Scott’s response was that he had never seen Dustin not treat the kids well. This response was based on the fact
---
**[Your Name]**
**[Your Address]**
**[City, State, ZIP Code]**
**[Phone Number]**
**[Email Address]**
**[Date]**
**[Court Name]**
**[Court Address]**
**[City, State, ZIP Code]**
**Re: [Case Name], Case No. [Case Number]**
**Motion for Clarification**
**Introduction:**
Petitioner, [Your Name], respectfully requests the court to clarify certain misunderstandings that occurred during the trial. This motion is made pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure *(b).
**Grounds for Clarification:**
*. **Misunderstanding Regarding Relationship:**
- During the trial, the judge asked RSP Branham if we were in a relationship. RSP Branham understood this question to refer to a sexual relationship, whereas the intended context was our relationship in raising a family together.
*. **Misunderstanding Regarding Testimony on Child Treatment:**
- Scott was asked if he ever saw Dustin treat the kids badly. Scott’s response was that he had never seen Dustin not treat the kids well. This response was based on the fact
continue
that Scott had limited interaction and only saw Dustin in passing, not enough to make a comprehensive judgment.
**Supporting Evidence:**
*. **Documentation:**
- Include any new or pending evidence, such as affidavits or documents from the Office of Vital Records, that support your clarifications.
*. **Testimonies:**
- Attach statements or affidavits from RSP Branham and Scott clarifying their misunderstandings during the trial.
**Legal Basis:**
- This motion is made pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure *(b), which allows for relief from a judgment or order due to mistakes, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
**Conclusion:**
- Due to the misunderstandings during the trial, Petitioner requests the court to clarify these issues and reconsider the affected portions of the judgment.
**Request for Relief:**
- Petitioner respectfully requests that the court:
- Clarify the nature of the relationship between Petitioner and RSP Branham.
- Reevaluate Scott’s testimony regarding Dustin’s treatment of the children considering the context provided.
- Consider any new evidence submitted with this motion.
**Signature:**
- [Your Signature]
- [Your Printed Name]
---
Would you like any further assistance with this draft
**Supporting Evidence:**
*. **Documentation:**
- Include any new or pending evidence, such as affidavits or documents from the Office of Vital Records, that support your clarifications.
*. **Testimonies:**
- Attach statements or affidavits from RSP Branham and Scott clarifying their misunderstandings during the trial.
**Legal Basis:**
- This motion is made pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure *(b), which allows for relief from a judgment or order due to mistakes, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
**Conclusion:**
- Due to the misunderstandings during the trial, Petitioner requests the court to clarify these issues and reconsider the affected portions of the judgment.
**Request for Relief:**
- Petitioner respectfully requests that the court:
- Clarify the nature of the relationship between Petitioner and RSP Branham.
- Reevaluate Scott’s testimony regarding Dustin’s treatment of the children considering the context provided.
- Consider any new evidence submitted with this motion.
**Signature:**
- [Your Signature]
- [Your Printed Name]
---
Would you like any further assistance with this draft
will you write the draft as if it was coming from Mr Branham
Certainly, Ash. Here is a draft for the motion for clarification from Mr. Branham's perspective:
---
**Mr. Branham**
**[Address]**
**[City, State, ZIP Code]**
**[Phone Number]**
**[Email Address]**
**[Date]**
**[Court Name]**
**[Court Address]**
**[City, State, ZIP Code]**
**Re: [Case Name], Case No. [Case Number]**
**Motion for Clarification**
**Introduction:**
Respondent, Mr. Branham, respectfully requests the court to clarify certain misunderstandings that occurred during the trial. This motion is made pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure *(b).
**Grounds for Clarification:**
*. **Misunderstanding Regarding Relationship:**
- During the trial, the judge asked if Petitioner and I were in a relationship. I understood this question to refer to a sexual relationship, whereas the intended context was our relationship in raising a family together.
*. **Misunderstanding Regarding Testimony on Child Treatment:**
- Scott was asked if he ever saw Dustin treat the kids badly. Scott’s response was that he had never seen Dustin not treat the
---
**Mr. Branham**
**[Address]**
**[City, State, ZIP Code]**
**[Phone Number]**
**[Email Address]**
**[Date]**
**[Court Name]**
**[Court Address]**
**[City, State, ZIP Code]**
**Re: [Case Name], Case No. [Case Number]**
**Motion for Clarification**
**Introduction:**
Respondent, Mr. Branham, respectfully requests the court to clarify certain misunderstandings that occurred during the trial. This motion is made pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure *(b).
**Grounds for Clarification:**
*. **Misunderstanding Regarding Relationship:**
- During the trial, the judge asked if Petitioner and I were in a relationship. I understood this question to refer to a sexual relationship, whereas the intended context was our relationship in raising a family together.
*. **Misunderstanding Regarding Testimony on Child Treatment:**
- Scott was asked if he ever saw Dustin treat the kids badly. Scott’s response was that he had never seen Dustin not treat the
continue
kids well. This response was based on the fact that Scott had limited interaction and only saw Dustin in passing, not enough to make a comprehensive judgment.
**Supporting Evidence:**
*. **Documentation:**
- Include any new or pending evidence, such as affidavits or documents from the Office of Vital Records, that support these clarifications.
*. **Testimonies:**
- Attach statements or affidavits from myself (Mr. Branham) and Scott clarifying our misunderstandings during the trial.
**Legal Basis:**
- This motion is made pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure *(b), which allows for relief from a judgment or order due to mistakes, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
**Conclusion:**
- Due to the misunderstandings during the trial, Respondent requests the court to clarify these issues and reconsider the affected portions of the judgment.
**Request for Relief:**
- Respondent respectfully requests that the court:
- Clarify the nature of the relationship between Petitioner and Respondent.
- Reevaluate Scott’s testimony regarding Dustin’s treatment of the children, considering the context provided.
- Consider any new evidence submitted with this motion.
**Signature:**
- [Your Signature]
- [Your Printed
**Supporting Evidence:**
*. **Documentation:**
- Include any new or pending evidence, such as affidavits or documents from the Office of Vital Records, that support these clarifications.
*. **Testimonies:**
- Attach statements or affidavits from myself (Mr. Branham) and Scott clarifying our misunderstandings during the trial.
**Legal Basis:**
- This motion is made pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure *(b), which allows for relief from a judgment or order due to mistakes, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
**Conclusion:**
- Due to the misunderstandings during the trial, Respondent requests the court to clarify these issues and reconsider the affected portions of the judgment.
**Request for Relief:**
- Respondent respectfully requests that the court:
- Clarify the nature of the relationship between Petitioner and Respondent.
- Reevaluate Scott’s testimony regarding Dustin’s treatment of the children, considering the context provided.
- Consider any new evidence submitted with this motion.
**Signature:**
- [Your Signature]
- [Your Printed
scott is mr branham
Thank you for the clarification. Here is the revised draft for the motion for clarification from Mr. Branham's perspective:
---
**Mr. Scott Branham**
**[Address]**
**[City, State, ZIP Code]**
**[Phone Number]**
**[Email Address]**
**[Date]**
**[Court Name]**
**[Court Address]**
**[City, State, ZIP Code]**
**Re: [Case Name], Case No. [Case Number]**
**Motion for Clarification**
**Introduction:**
Respondent, Mr. Scott Branham, respectfully requests the court to clarify certain misunderstandings that occurred during the trial. This motion is made pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure *(b).
**Grounds for Clarification:**
*. **Misunderstanding Regarding Relationship:**
- During the trial, the judge asked if Petitioner and I were in a relationship. I understood this question to refer to a sexual relationship, whereas the intended context was our relationship in raising a family together.
*. **Misunderstanding Regarding Testimony on Child Treatment:**
- I was asked if I ever saw Dustin treat the kids badly. My response was that I had never seen
---
**Mr. Scott Branham**
**[Address]**
**[City, State, ZIP Code]**
**[Phone Number]**
**[Email Address]**
**[Date]**
**[Court Name]**
**[Court Address]**
**[City, State, ZIP Code]**
**Re: [Case Name], Case No. [Case Number]**
**Motion for Clarification**
**Introduction:**
Respondent, Mr. Scott Branham, respectfully requests the court to clarify certain misunderstandings that occurred during the trial. This motion is made pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure *(b).
**Grounds for Clarification:**
*. **Misunderstanding Regarding Relationship:**
- During the trial, the judge asked if Petitioner and I were in a relationship. I understood this question to refer to a sexual relationship, whereas the intended context was our relationship in raising a family together.
*. **Misunderstanding Regarding Testimony on Child Treatment:**
- I was asked if I ever saw Dustin treat the kids badly. My response was that I had never seen
continue
Dustin not treat the kids well. This response was based on the fact that I had limited interaction and only saw Dustin in passing, not enough to make a comprehensive judgment.
**Supporting Evidence:**
*. **Documentation:**
- Include any new or pending evidence, such as affidavits or documents from the Office of Vital Records, that support these clarifications.
*. **Testimonies:**
- Attach statements or affidavits from myself and any other relevant witnesses clarifying our misunderstandings during the trial.
**Legal Basis:**
- This motion is made pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure *(b), which allows for relief from a judgment or order due to mistakes, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
**Conclusion:**
- Due to the misunderstandings during the trial, Respondent requests the court to clarify these issues and reconsider the affected portions of the judgment.
**Request for Relief:**
- Respondent respectfully requests that the court:
- Clarify the nature of the relationship between Petitioner and Respondent.
- Reevaluate my testimony regarding Dustin’s treatment of the children, considering the context provided.<
**Supporting Evidence:**
*. **Documentation:**
- Include any new or pending evidence, such as affidavits or documents from the Office of Vital Records, that support these clarifications.
*. **Testimonies:**
- Attach statements or affidavits from myself and any other relevant witnesses clarifying our misunderstandings during the trial.
**Legal Basis:**
- This motion is made pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure *(b), which allows for relief from a judgment or order due to mistakes, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
**Conclusion:**
- Due to the misunderstandings during the trial, Respondent requests the court to clarify these issues and reconsider the affected portions of the judgment.
**Request for Relief:**
- Respondent respectfully requests that the court:
- Clarify the nature of the relationship between Petitioner and Respondent.
- Reevaluate my testimony regarding Dustin’s treatment of the children, considering the context provided.<
here is the transcript during scotts testimony, what else should be clarified? Scott: My name is Scott Branham
Magistrate: ok, um Mr. Branham. Are you currently legally married to anyone?
Scott: yes ma’am
Magistrate: who are you legally married to?
Scott: Christy Branham
Magistrate: who do you currently live with?
Scott: Christy, myself, Ashley, and her * kids (Ashtin, Nova and Allie)
Magistrate: did you file a motion to establish paternity of Allie
Scott: Yes, Maam
Magistrate: and why are you asking the court to find that you are the legal father of Allie?
Scott: um I want to do that because I feel that’s best for Allie, I’m here to support her, um, I know the responsibility that puts on me if I’m granted that
Magistrate: ok, so I've not yet made any legal findings in regards to establishing or disclaiming, I need to have both occur at the same time…...often times there’s other adults in a child’s life who offer emotional support, financial support, just assistance, there’s step parents, different than the court legally establishing paternity or parentage, so you just testified you are here to support Allie, do you think its in allies best interest that i find you to be the legal parent of Allie or do you want to just supportive of Allie and Ms. Jemmings
Scott: I want to be recognized as her dad, I feel that’s what’s best for Allie
Magistrate: why, why is that best for Allie?
Scott: I don’t know how to explain it…um she’s my kid, she moved into my house around April * and they’ve actually, I’ve treated all of them as my own I do have another son that’s *, no actually he’s older than * now, he’s married in north Carolina, so it’s not like they are my only children but i treat them as my own, when they go out they reference me as dad, um
Magistrate: ok so are you currently in a relationship with Ms Jemmings?
Scott: no, we all live together, part of me coming before you to have me put on her birth certificate as her father was I was under the understanding that Colorado will not leave a child without a father.
Magistrate: ok so that’s inaccurate, its not a child cannot, um oftentimes, a father isn’t listed on a minor child’s birth certificate, if dads not present at the hospital and moms not legally married, so that’s not accurate, so noting that that’s where I’m getting back to the distinction between offering love and support of Allie and legal finding of parentage, totally different, ok, what else do you want me to know about your position to establish paternity?
Scott: I don’t know what else
Magistrate: ok do you currently financially pay for support of allie
Scott: oh ya I help support Allie when we go do things I help provide food, I provide shelter, um
Magistrate: ok so what does that mean more specifically?
Scott: um I pay propane, food, electric, I pay when we go out I buy dinner, we split I pay for dinner some nights, Ashley pays for dinner some nights, um food in the house, um gas for dr appointments, anything a father would do
Magistrate: ok and have you ever held yourself out to be the natural father of Allie to the community
Scott: um I have stated that she is my kid and she does call me dad out in public and out with my family, at family gatherings, other places, I have a friend named Jake down in pueblo that we’ve gone down horseback riding with and he’s witnessed it.
Magistrate: ok so you represent out to the community that shes your daughter
Scott: mmmhmm
Magistrate: alright anything else at all that you want me to know regards to the petition to establish paternity
Scott: no, maam
Magistrate: and you first began living in the same home as allie in april of *
Scott: yes maam
Magistrate: so when you met ms Jemmings, or began living with Ms Jemmings, Allie was already born?
Scott: Yes Maam
Magistrate: alright any questions of this witness, Ms Jemmings on cross-examination?
Ashley: would you say that your relationship with Allie is different than that of like an uncle, or just a friend?
Scott: Oh, absolutely
Ashley: In what ways?
Scott: um I’m there for her, it doesn’t matter when, what, like I said, I hate hospitals, I hate to go even for myself but if , when she needs it, I’m there for her, um I’ve been her jungle gym, I’ve been everything that a dad should be.
Ashley: have you signed any acknowledgement of parentage for Allie?
Scott: um I’ve.. uh yes I believe so, for like for schools and stuff, knowing that on her paperwork and for court
Ashley: no other questions
Magistrate: no other questions, Ms Jemmings?
Ashley: Correct
Magistrate : ok, Mr. Olive do you have any questions of Mr Branham on cross-examination?
Dustin: I do, um why wait so late to step up to say you want to be on Allies birth certificate? like in the case when she filed saying that she wanted me off the birth certificate, why wait so late to say you wanted to be on it, claiming to be her father?
Magistrate : ok so I hear the question to be why did you wait so long to file a petition to establish paternity?
Scott: I really don’t have an reason, im..
Dustin: so it didn’t come to mid when all this was going on, like "oh I want to be the father" like right off the bat?
Magistrate: ok and you have to let him answer
Scott: honestly before this court and stuff, um again it don’t matter to me, I love the kid, I want to be listed but at the same time, she’s going to be my kid as long as she’s with me and afterwords.
Dustin: how many times do you recall bringing Allie to me and getting her from me? How many times do you remember bringing Allie to me when I lived at * Curtis Rd? right down the street from y’all?
Magistrate: you have to let him answer
Scott: I honestly don’t know the answer, the number of times, I know it was a few,
Dustin: A few?
Magistrate: and so what,.. can you, was it was more than * times, more than * times, more specific
Scott: I’d say it was between * and * yes
Dustin: umm.., what did you see I, how I treated Allie when you’d come to pick her up? That I cared for her that I loved her?
Scott: oh absolutely, I’ve never seen you not treat your kids well.
Dustin: That’s it your honor
Magistrate: ok anything else, any redirect of yourself based on these couple questions on cross examination Mr. Branham?
Scott: not that I can think of your honor
Magistrate: all right you can step down, alright any additional wittnesses Ms Jemmings, ….any closing remarks Ms Jemmings?
Ashley: just that with Scott’s longstanding role as Allie’s father and the close bond that he’s formed with her over the past 4 years, um he has been her parent and I think it would be in her best interest to have Mr Branham listed as her father legally, just to continue with the stability and uh, support that he has provided for Allie.
Magistrate: ok any closing…..Mr Olive?
Dustin: yes ma’am um..if Ms Jemmings would actually let me step up and be a father, I mean be there for my kids, actually let me see my kids, I can be a dad, you know I can be a father, I can be supportive, I can be everything a dad should be you know, if she would just let me be with my kids, just let me be there, please
Magistrate: ok any closing…..Mr Branham?
Scott: um I love these kids, they are great kids, I’ve heard his comment about Ashley not letting him see his kids, it’s not that Ashley is not letting them, um everytime that he has asked to see them, she goes to the kids and asks the kids Ashtin and Nova, do you want to see your dad, and they will say no
Magistrate: ok, so any argument regarding, specific to the minor child Allie
Scott: umm. No..I just wanted that on the record that it aint that Ashley is keeping him from the kids, it’s their request.
To clarify further during Scott's testimony, you may want to address the following points:
*. **Nature of Relationship with Ms. Jemmings:**
- Clarify that the relationship referenced was non-sexual and pertains strictly to co-parenting and supporting the children together.
*. **Extent of Interaction with Mr. Olive:**
- Specify the limited nature of interactions with Mr. Olive, emphasizing that observations were brief and in passing, not sufficient to form a comprehensive judgment on his treatment of the children.
*. **Financial Support Details:**
- Provide more specific details about the financial contributions and daily support activities to demonstrate the role taken in Allie’s life.
*. **Emotional and Psychological Impact:**
- Elaborate on the emotional and psychological bond with Allie, explaining how being legally recognized as her father would benefit her stability and well-being.
*. **Intent and Timing of Paternity Petition:**
- Clarify any reasons or circumstances that delayed the filing of the petition to establish paternity to address concerns about timing and intent.
Would you like more detailed guidance on how to address these points in your motion or during testimony?
*. **Nature of Relationship with Ms. Jemmings:**
- Clarify that the relationship referenced was non-sexual and pertains strictly to co-parenting and supporting the children together.
*. **Extent of Interaction with Mr. Olive:**
- Specify the limited nature of interactions with Mr. Olive, emphasizing that observations were brief and in passing, not sufficient to form a comprehensive judgment on his treatment of the children.
*. **Financial Support Details:**
- Provide more specific details about the financial contributions and daily support activities to demonstrate the role taken in Allie’s life.
*. **Emotional and Psychological Impact:**
- Elaborate on the emotional and psychological bond with Allie, explaining how being legally recognized as her father would benefit her stability and well-being.
*. **Intent and Timing of Paternity Petition:**
- Clarify any reasons or circumstances that delayed the filing of the petition to establish paternity to address concerns about timing and intent.
Would you like more detailed guidance on how to address these points in your motion or during testimony?
yes
Certainly, Ash. Here is a detailed guide on how to address these points in your motion for clarification and during testimony:
Motion for Clarification
---
**Mr. Scott Branham**
**[Address]**
**[City, State, ZIP Code]**
**[Phone Number]**
**[Email Address]**
**[Date]**
**[Court Name]**
**[Court Address]**
**[City, State, ZIP Code]**
**Re: [Case Name], Case No. [Case Number]**
**Motion for Clarification**
**Introduction:**
Respondent, Mr. Scott Branham, respectfully requests the court to clarify certain misunderstandings that occurred during the trial. This motion is made pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure *(b).
**Grounds for Clarification:**
*. **Misunderstanding Regarding Relationship:**
- During the trial, the judge asked if Petitioner and I were in a relationship. I understood this question to refer to a sexual relationship. The intended context was our relationship in raising a family together and providing support for the children.
*. **Misunderstanding Regarding Testimony on Child Treatment:**
- I was asked if I ever saw Dustin treat the
---
**Mr. Scott Branham**
**[Address]**
**[City, State, ZIP Code]**
**[Phone Number]**
**[Email Address]**
**[Date]**
**[Court Name]**
**[Court Address]**
**[City, State, ZIP Code]**
**Re: [Case Name], Case No. [Case Number]**
**Motion for Clarification**
**Introduction:**
Respondent, Mr. Scott Branham, respectfully requests the court to clarify certain misunderstandings that occurred during the trial. This motion is made pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure *(b).
**Grounds for Clarification:**
*. **Misunderstanding Regarding Relationship:**
- During the trial, the judge asked if Petitioner and I were in a relationship. I understood this question to refer to a sexual relationship. The intended context was our relationship in raising a family together and providing support for the children.
*. **Misunderstanding Regarding Testimony on Child Treatment:**
- I was asked if I ever saw Dustin treat the
continue
kids badly. My response was that I had never seen Dustin not treat the kids well. This response was based on the fact that I had limited interaction with him and only saw him in passing, not enough to make a comprehensive judgment.
**Supporting Evidence:**
*. **Documentation:**
- Include any new or pending evidence, such as affidavits or documents from the Office of Vital Records, that support these clarifications.
*. **Testimonies:**
- Attach statements or affidavits from myself and any other relevant witnesses clarifying our misunderstandings during the trial.
**Legal Basis:**
- This motion is made pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure *(b), which allows for relief from a judgment or order due to mistakes, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
**Conclusion:**
- Due to the misunderstandings during the trial, Respondent requests the court to clarify these issues and reconsider the affected portions of the judgment.
**Request for Relief:**
- Respondent respectfully requests that the court:
- Clarify the nature of the relationship between Petitioner and Respondent.
- Reevaluate my testimony regarding Dustin’s treatment of the children, considering the context provided.
- Consider any new evidence submitted with this motion.
**Supporting Evidence:**
*. **Documentation:**
- Include any new or pending evidence, such as affidavits or documents from the Office of Vital Records, that support these clarifications.
*. **Testimonies:**
- Attach statements or affidavits from myself and any other relevant witnesses clarifying our misunderstandings during the trial.
**Legal Basis:**
- This motion is made pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure *(b), which allows for relief from a judgment or order due to mistakes, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
**Conclusion:**
- Due to the misunderstandings during the trial, Respondent requests the court to clarify these issues and reconsider the affected portions of the judgment.
**Request for Relief:**
- Respondent respectfully requests that the court:
- Clarify the nature of the relationship between Petitioner and Respondent.
- Reevaluate my testimony regarding Dustin’s treatment of the children, considering the context provided.
- Consider any new evidence submitted with this motion.
Start a new chat