Parenting time by age: what the research and the guidelines support.

Colorado’s law: best interests, not an age table.

The general assembly’s stated goal is “frequent and continuing contact between each parent and the minor children” where that is appropriate, and the court allocates parenting time “in accordance with the best interests of the child, giving paramount consideration to the child’s safety and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions and needs of the child” (C.R.S. § 14-10-124(1), (1.5)). Age enters through those needs, not through a table.

What the court weighs, and what it may not.

The same factors apply at every age. The child’s age changes which of them carry the weight.

The factors are the parents’ wishes; the child’s wishes, if the child “is sufficiently mature to express reasoned and independent preferences as to the parenting time schedule”; the child’s relationships; adjustment to home, school and community; everyone’s health; each parent’s ability to support the child’s relationship with the other; each parent’s past involvement; the distance between the homes; and each parent’s ability to put the child first (C.R.S. § 14-10-124(1.5)(a)). For a baby, past hands-on care and distance usually decide the case; for a teenager, the child’s reasoned preferences and school life come forward. More on the factors: Parental Responsibilities.

What the court may not do. Presume either parent is better for the child because of sex (C.R.S. § 14-10-124(3)), or consider conduct that does not affect a parent’s relationship to the child (C.R.S. § 14-10-124(2)); and it must strive not to consider biased information or recommendations (C.R.S. § 14-10-124(1.5)(a.5)). There is no maternal preference for infants in Colorado law.

What exists instead of a table. A statute authorizes “parenting time guidelines” as one tool of an optional enforcement program (C.R.S. § 14-10.5-104(1)(a)(VI)); I have found none adopted statewide. The Judicial Branch website still hosts a 2004 booklet (Irvine, Connecting With Your Kids) whose “By age 3, parenting time can include overnights” implies a wait the later research does not support. In my experience, evaluators cite the research and the guidelines other states have published, and judges treat them as evidence, not rules.

The child’s wishes, weighed by maturity.

No Colorado statute lets a child of any age choose. The child’s wishes count only if “reasoned and independent”; a coached preference, or a wish for fewer rules, carries little weight. On a motion the court may interview the child in chambers, with a record made, and must explain why it granted or denied the request (C.R.S. § 14-10-126(1)). More often the child’s views arrive through a CFI or an evaluator. Children also have statutory rights of their own, including to be safe in each parent’s care (C.R.S. § 14-10-123.4(1)).

May 2026: when “no overnights” is a restriction.

Restricting a parent’s time requires a finding that it would endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impair the child’s emotional development (C.R.S. § 14-10-129(1)(b)(I)). In In re Marriage of Dale, 2026 CO 35, the Supreme Court held that a restriction “arises only when a court either zeros out parenting time altogether or places qualitative constraints on how parenting time is exercised—constraints on the manner, location, or environment of parenting time, such as supervision requirements, prohibitions on overnight visits, or limits on where parenting time may occur.” Fewer overnights is a best-interests modification; no overnights is on the restriction side of the line. Not every qualitative condition is a restriction, the court added, and it has not decided whether an infant plan that starts with daytime contact and adds overnights on a schedule is a “prohibition.” (Two justices, concurring only in the judgment, used a nursing eleven-month-old to attack where the line was drawn.) Until that is decided, a written step-up that adds overnights by date or milestone is safer ground than an open-ended “no overnights until further order.” Changing a plan later: Modifying Custody.

After a finding of domestic violence, safety first.

The research below assumes a safe home. Since HB 26-1309 (effective May 27, 2026), a court that finds domestic violence, child abuse or neglect must impose conditions that keep the child and the abused parent safe, and the plan may include limits on contact, protected exchanges, supervised time, restricted overnights, and no alcohol or drugs “during parenting time or for twenty-four hours prior” (C.R.S. § 14-10-124(1.6)(a)). Mutual decision-making over the abused parent’s objection requires specific findings that it can occur “without coercion, intimidation, retaliation, or risk of harm” (C.R.S. § 14-10-124(1.5)(c)).

Colorado has no age table. It has factors, and a body of research that evaluators read to apply them.

The research: what it supports, and where it divides.

Most of this research is correlational: it shows which arrangements go with which outcomes, not what causes them, and families who share care are not a random sample. Four findings hold across it. One question divides it.

The overnight dispute, attributed.

The 2014 consensus, and the chart that applies it.

No blanket bar on overnights under three; caution about frequent overnights where a relationship is new or conflict is high.

In 2014 three researchers whose work had been cited on opposite sides, Pruett, McIntosh and Kelly, published a joint statement in Family Court Review, the journal of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). Their consensus: “Cautions against overnight care during the first three years are not supported. The limited available research substantiates some caution about higher frequency overnight schedules with young children, particularly when the child’s relationship with a second parent has not been established and/or parents are in frequent conflict to which the child is exposed” (Part I).

Their companion chart (Part II) sorts families into rare or no overnights, one to four a month, and five or more, weighing eight considerations “in order of importance,” beginning with safety and the child’s trust in each parent, and including each parent’s mental health (“no or well-managed drug and alcohol issues”), breastfeeding, the co-parenting relationship and whether the parents “live within a manageable commute.” The authors reject “unqualified presumptive ‘for’ or ‘against’ rules.” The AFCC think tank’s report the same year reached the same place for every age: decisions are case-specific, and no single division of time fits every family (Pruett & DiFonzo, 2014, Family Court Review).

The most consistent finding in the research is not about any schedule. It is about conflict, and the quality of the parenting on each side of it.

Infants, birth to 18 months: frequency, routine, and a relationship first.

Attachment forms through everyday care, and a baby cannot hold an absent parent in mind for long: out of sight, out of mind. Separation and stranger anxiety rise around six months (AAP, 2016), and by six to nine months children form “multiple and simultaneous attachments” to the people who care for them (Massachusetts Chapter of the AFCC, Planning for Shared Parenting, 2004).

Toddlers, 18 to 36 months: two nights, not a week.

Toddlers want autonomy and protest separations. Under stress they may slide backward: “Developmental regression, including loss of toileting and language skills, is not uncommon” (AAP, 2016). Predictable routines in both homes carry them through.

Consecutive overnights, in small numbers. Most toddlers can manage two consecutive overnights with each parent; five-to-seven-day blocks should wait (Kelly & Lamb, 2000). Oregon’s guide for twenty-four to thirty-six months: “Ideally, child should not be separated from either parent for more than 4 days.” Other published schedules for this age add two consecutive overnights a week, or a two-days-then-three rotation. The Massachusetts AFCC guide: “It is preferable to begin with overnights spaced throughout the week, particularly if dealing with an only child.” That is the logic of 2-2-3: no more than three nights from either parent.

Where a parent has not been a regular caregiver. Indiana keeps daytime blocks until the parent has exercised time for nine months; the McIntosh chart wants a trusting relationship of six months or more before frequent overnights. The answer is a step-up with dates, not a permanent daytime schedule.

Transitions and communication. “Resistance to exchanges is normal for many children” (Massachusetts AFCC guide), and it is often easier for a toddler if the parent the child is with does the drop-off. Calls should be brief, daily and at a set hour. Distress that fades soon after a handoff is common; the McIntosh chart treats irritability, clinging or regression persisting three to four weeks as a signal to adjust.

Preschool, 3 to 5: three or four days, and the first holidays.

Preschoolers begin to understand days and weeks, fear the dark, and, by four or five, “may blame themselves for the separation” (AAP, 2016). Friends and preschool start to matter.

What the guidelines suggest. Kelly and Lamb (2000) wrote that many preschoolers are comfortable with extended weekends and weekday overnights in each home, but most are stressed by separations from either parent longer than three or four days. The toddler schedules generally carry over to this age; Oregon’s most involved plan includes 2-2-5-5; Indiana moves to its standard alternating-weekend schedule at three, with up to four extended weeks a year at ages three and four.

What the evidence shows. Among 3,656 Swedish children aged three to five, “joint physical custody arrangements were not associated with more psychological symptoms” (Bergström et al., 2018, Acta Paediatrica); the Australian study found no overnight effects at four to five (McIntosh, Smyth & Kelaher, 2013). Both are snapshots.

Transitions and holidays. A favorite stuffed toy or a family photo travels well between homes. After age three, children become more aware of holiday celebrations, which is when the holiday schedule starts to matter to the child as well as the parents; see the holiday clauses. Not supported: single blocks of a week or more away from either parent for most children this age (Kelly & Lamb, 2000).

School age, 6 to 12: school is the anchor.

School-age children worry about loyalty, may hope the parents will reunite, and can slip at school (AAP, 2016). Friends, activities and homework now shape the week, and by ten to twelve children often want a say in where they live.

What the guidelines suggest. The range widens. Published school-age schedules run from two consecutive overnights every other week to alternating weeks, with 2-2-5-5 (each parent has the same two consecutive weekday overnights each week and the weekends alternate) in between. As a child matures, longer periods with fewer exchanges are usually preferred. Indiana gives the other parent half of summer from age five.

What the evidence shows. Most joint-custody research is about this age group (Steinbach, 2019). Swedish sixth and ninth graders in joint physical custody reported fewer psychosomatic problems than children living mostly or only with one parent, though more than children in intact families (Bergström et al., 2015, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 147,839 children). Where conflict stayed high for years after the divorce, more shared parenting went with poorer adjustment, and high-quality parenting by at least one parent with better adjustment (Mahrer et al., 2018, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage).

Transitions and communication. Exchanges at school, so the parents never meet at a door. “Children should be given the opportunity and privacy to call the other parent” (Massachusetts AFCC guide); see the communication clause. Not supported: the claim, repeated online without a source, that alternating weeks is wrong for every child under ten; and reading the joint-custody research as proof that a schedule causes better outcomes.

Adolescents, 12 to 18: a voice, not a vote.

Teenagers need independence and a life of their own: friends, sports, jobs, driving, college. The schedule has to make room for it without handing them the pen.

Early adolescence, 12 to 15.

Peers and activities compete with the schedule, and many young teenagers begin to negotiate their own time. The Massachusetts AFCC guide calls it “appropriate for children of this age to begin to negotiate their time directly with each parent,” and says it is “of paramount importance for parents to talk directly with each other to be certain that the child is safe and accountable.” Flexibility is negotiated between the parents, not won by playing one against the other. Indiana’s commentary is blunt: a teenager “should never be used as the ‘tie breaker.’”

Colorado. A thirteen- or fourteen-year-old’s reasoned wishes usually carry real weight, and the court can hear them in chambers (C.R.S. § 14-10-126(1)). They remain one factor. No statute says twelve or fourteen decides, and a parent must still make reasonable efforts to get a reluctant teenager to the other home; a refusal is a reason for a motion, not for ignoring the order.

Older teens, 16 to 18.

Jobs, cars, school load and college applications take over the calendar. Many teenagers do best with a primary home base and specific evenings, weekends and activities at the other home, scheduled regularly and predictably; a teenager will usually want a say in the plan, but the teen does not get to choose. Other teenagers do well on alternating weeks. Write consultation and a yearly review into the plan instead of a rigid rotation, and keep holidays defined. Support generally runs to nineteen, and while a child is still in high school to the end of the month after graduation (C.R.S. § 14-10-115(13); When Child Support Ends).

A teenager gets a voice. The plan, and the court, keep the vote.

The six stages in one table.

A summary of the guidance above, for comparison. Read the paragraph under it before you use it.

Read this before you use the table. This page is not psychological advice, and it is not a prediction for your case. Every child is different. A Colorado court decides on the child’s best interests under C.R.S. § 14-10-124, on the evidence about your child and your family. The research and the out-of-state guidelines summarized here are what evaluators commonly consult, not rules, and they describe groups of children, not yours. Ask your child’s pediatrician. To see a schedule in overnights and support, use the parenting-time calculator; a move is its own case (Relocation & Move-Away).

Six things people get wrong.

The questions parents ask about schedules and age.

Related: Parenting-Time Schedules  ·  The Parenting Plan, Clause by Clause  ·  Parental Responsibilities  ·  Modifying Custody  ·  Parenting-Time Calculator