that law. Jenkins’ will does not reflect any intent to include his daughters’ adopted children as beneficiaries of his testamentary trust, much less his daughters’ equitably adopted children. Although Jenkins’ will refers to his daughters’ “children,” the will does not expressly use the term “adopted children.” In the absence of explicit language expressing JenMns’ intent to include his daughters’ adopted children, the law at the time Jenkins executed his will prevents including adopted children as beneficiaries to his testamentary trust. Moreover, the doctrine of equitable adoption was not recognized by Colorado until more than twenty years after Jenkins died. See Barlow v. Barlo cipal Subdistrict Northern Colorado Water Conservancy Dist., 198 Colo. 352, 355, 610 P.2d 81, 83 (1979) (<HOLDING>). The probate court ruled that, based on the
holding that clearly erroneous standard of review governs district courts factual findings based on state record documentary evidence and inferences from other facts holding that the finding of intent to discriminate is a factual determination subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review holding that the clearly erroneous standard of review applies to  3bllc determinations holding that the clearly erroneous standard of review applies unless judgment is entered on the basis of documentary evidence alone holding that pretext is subject to the clearly erroneous standard