In a brief order issued last week, the Colorado Supreme Court granted relief to a father who has only spent two hours of parenting time with his children since November 2020, stemming from the strict terms of his 2018 divorce.

When Jason Strong divorced his wife, Kassandra Webb-Galarza, an Adams County judge created three phases of custody, each giving Strong slightly more time with his children. Whether Strong could advance to the next phase depended upon his adherence to certain terms and conditions.

However, Strong found himself perpetually unable to complete “Phase I” because of his periodic violation of certain base terms, namely the completion of drug testing. Strong labeled such restrictions “self-executing,” arguing they automatically and illegitimately take away a parent’s visitation rights without the other spouse needing to ask a court to impose restrictions.

Douglas County Magistrate Jacob A. Edson was set to hold a hearing on Strong’s request to modify his parenting time in February. But hours beforehand, Edson canceled the hearing and directed Strong and Webb-Galarza to engage in mediation – even though the ex-spouses had attended mediation twice and were unable to resolve their differences.

Strong immediately appealed to the Supreme Court to seek its rare intervention.

“After two years of litigation, several failed mediations, innumerable motions, and two separate trial settings that were vacated, Father still has no parenting time,” wrote Strong’s attorneys. “Mother has spent years repeatedly insisting that Father is entitled to no parenting time whatsoever based entirely on her perceived violations of technical and outdated orders that have nothing to do with present endangerment to the children.”

The Supreme Court directed Edson and Webb-Galarza to explain why it should not order the hearing Strong had requested. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office, representing Edson, argued Strong had the opportunity to appeal through normal channels, without needing to resort to the state’s highest court.

Webb-Galarza’s attorneys made a similar argument, but noted she had no objection to a hearing, “as she also believes a modification is necessary to serve the children’s best interests.”

On May 12, the Supreme Court sided with Strong, overruling Edson’s decision to sidestep Strong’s request for greater custody.

“Given the unusual circumstances of this case,” the justices wrote in an unsigned order, “the trial court is ordered, without additional mediation, to hold a hearing on the Motion to Modify Parenting Time within a reasonable timeframe.”

The Supreme Court did not address Strong’s broader argument: That self-executing restrictions on visitation, which take effect without a judge’s finding that children are currently endangered, should be declared void.

Attorneys for Strong and Webb-Galarza did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.

The case is In Re the Marriage of Webb-Galarza and Strong.