VERIFIED APPEAL OF VONTRAY NUBINE

Vontray Nubine

4833 Kirk St.,

Denver, CO 80249

(720) 326-5247 

bookvonnylocv3@gmail.com

 

Appellant/Respondent in pro per

 

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF COLORADO

 

IN RE THE PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES CONCERNING: JAVEAH NUBINE, JANIYAH NUBINE, JAYAHNA NUBINE

VONTRAY NUBINE,

Appellant/Respondent,

vs.

JASMINE CUNNINGHAM,

Appellee/Petitioner

 Case No.: Number

VERIFIED APPEAL OF VONTRAY NUBINE

 

NOW COMES Vontray Nubine, and files this Appeal against the final judgment issued by the District Court, Denver County, and for cause, would show this Honorable Court as follows:

  • PARTIES
  1. Appellant/Respondent Vontray Nubine is a law-abiding male adult citizen of sound mind and a resident of 4833 Kirk St., Denver, CO 80249.
  2. Appellee Jasmine Cunningham is a female adult citizen of sound mind and a resident of the State of Colorado.

  • JURISDICTION AND VENUE
  1. Jurisdiction exists in this Court pursuant to 2016 Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-4-102.
  2. Venue is proper in this Court because all events described herein happened in the State of Colorado.

  • STATEMENT OF FACTS
  1. The parties are embroiled in this lawsuit regarding custody of their minor children and parenting time.
  2. In May 2019, Respondent was awarded custody of the minor children.
  3. In the trial court, Appellant filed a motion to restrict mother’s parenting time. The motion was denied by the learned magistrate who held that there was no basis for restricting the mother’s parenting time.
  4. On her own accord and without motion by any party, on 05/01/2019, the learned magistrate modified the prior order regarding parenting time and awarded 50-50 custody.
  5. On 06/12/2020, Appellee filed a motion to modify parenting time before the required time under C.R.S. § 14-10-129(1.5). The untimely motion to modify parenting time was wrongly considered by the learned magistrate.
  6. Respondent was not served with the motion. He was not given a chance to rebut the motion as he did not know of it existence. Had he been served with the motion, he would have rebutted stating that the motion was improper.
  7. The decisions of the learned magistrate negatively disrupted the education and social lives of the minor children. They have missed several days of school and their medical insurance has been tampered with as a result of an unauthorized hearing held on 12/21/2021. 
  8. Teachers of the minor children have noticed a change in their behavior since the minor children went to live with Appellant. They began struggling academically and emotionally when they began living with her pursuant to the order modified by the learned magistrate.
  9. Since the issuance of the modified order, Appellant has not seen his children. That is an unfair denial of his parental rights.
  10. There was a criminal protection order which specified the children that Appellee was allowed to have supervised visits with. The learned magistrate held that the criminal protection order was vague, yet she did not have jurisdiction to determine that. Since then, Appellee has been jailed and a warrant of arrest issued against her mother.

  • ARGUMENT

The Trial Court Erred in Considering a Motion Filed Outside the Statute of Limitations

  1. Appellant hereby incorporates the facts and allegations in Paragraphs 1-12 of this Appeal as though set out in full herein.
  2. Colorado Revised Statutes § 14-10-129(1.5) provides as follows: “If a motion for a substantial modification of parenting time which also changes the party with whom the child resides a majority of the time has been filed, whether or not it has been granted, no subsequent motion may be filed within two years after disposition of the prior motion unless the court decides, on the basis of affidavits, that the child’s present environment may endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impair the child’s emotional development or that the party with whom the child resides a majority of the time is intending to relocate with the child to a residence that substantially changes the geographical ties between the child and the other party.”
  3. Through the learned magistrate, on 05/01/2019, the trial court modified the order regarding parenting time and changed the party with whom the minor children reside with. On 06/12/2020, Appellee filed a motion for parenting time which was considered by the trial court.
  4. Going by the date the trial court modified the order regarding parenting time (05/01/2019), both parties would have had to wait until 05/01/2021 before any of them filed another motion to modify parenting time.
  5. The trial court erred when it considered Appellee’s motion which was filed before the time allowed by statute.

 

The Trial Court’s Decision is Not in the Best Interests of the Minor Children

  1. Appellant hereby incorporates the facts and allegations in Paragraphs 1-17 of this Appeal as though set out in full herein.
  2. “The allocation of parenting time is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, taking into consideration the child’s best interests and the policy of maintaining the child’s relationship with both parents. In re Marriage of Fickling, 100 P.3d at 574-75. Thus, the General Assembly’s mandate is clear: allocate parenting time between the parents in a manner which is in the best interests of the child.” Spahmer v. Gullette, 113 P.3d 158 (2005).
  3. The trial court’s decision in regard to modification of the parenting order to grant custody to Appellee was not made in the best interests of the minor children.
  4. In determining custody, a court ought to consider the safety and wellbeing of the minor children. The learned magistrate of the trial court erred when she granted custody of the minor children to Appellee, a woman who has been unable to take care of the minor children.
  5. The learned magistrate awarded custody to Appellee, a parent against whom a criminal protection order was issued. Courts will issue criminal protection orders when there is need to ensure the safety of other persons. 
  6. Considering that Appellant is a law-abiding citizen against whom no orders have been issued, the trial court should have awarded custody of the minor children to Appellant since he has never been a threat to the safety of anyone.
  7. Since the minor children went to live with Appellee, there have been concerns from their teachers in regard to their academic performance and overall wellbeing. It is clear that events such as the jailing of their mother as well as the issuance of a warrant of arrest against their grandmother has taken a toll on their mental health.
  8. In awarding custody to the mother, the trial court did not consider the policy of maintaining the child’s relationship with both parents. The award was not done with the relationship between Appellant and the minor children in mind. Since the modification of the order regarding parenting time by the learned magistrate, Appellant has not been able to see the minor children.
  9. Appellant and the minor children miss each other. They all suffer mental anguish from not seeing each other.

  • PRAYER FOR RELIEF

REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant this Appeal and subsequently nullify the final order issued by the trial court on [DATE].

 

Dated this ____ day of March, 2022.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Vontray Nubine

Appellant/Respondent in pro per

 

VERIFICATION

I, Vontray Nubine, being duly sworn depose and say that I have read the foregoing Appeal and know the contents thereof. That the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters and things stated upon information and belief, and as to those things, I believe them to be true.

 

_________________________________

(Sign in the presence of a Notary Public)

 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this ___ day of March, 2022.

______________________________

Notary Public

________________________________________

(Printed name of Notary Public)

My Commission Expires: ____________________

 

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.