1975, June, Pg. 1292. FAMILY LAW NEWSLETTER.

4 Colo.Law. 1292

Colorado Lawyer

1975.

1975, June, Pg. 1292.

FAMILY LAW NEWSLETTER

1292Vol. 4, No. 6, Pg. 1292FAMILY LAW NEWSLETTERNinety-Day Waiting Period Mandatory?It was the opinion of the Council of the Family Law Section, at their last meeting, that the intent of the statute with regard to the necessity for a 90-day "cooling off" period between service and hearing is clear. The necessity of the waiting period is not waived simply because the parties are co-petitioners, any more than it is tolled by a reconciliation of the parties during that time. The purpose of the statute is to be certain that the parties to a marriage feel the marriage to be as irretrievably broken at the end of three months as they did at the beginning---regardless of the unanimity of their feeling at the time of filing, or of any second thoughts in the interim.

Custody Jurisdiction AffidavitMany jurisdictions now require an affidavit of the party asserting jurisdiction over custody of children in actions for dissolution of marriage. Such an affidavit is clearly required in any actions brought pursuant to C.R.S. 1973, § 14-1 0-123, and is described in C.R.S. 1973, § 14-13-110. Professor Homer Clark of the University of Colorado College of Law has long been advocating the use of such affidavits in all domestic cases, and the affidavits are now required by Hon. George E. Lohr of Aspen, and Hon. Edward J. Byrne of Denver. For those unfamiliar with the use of such affidavits, we provide the following sample:

AFFIDAVIT

The affiant, being the party of the same name in the attached pleading, being of full age and having been first duly sworn, states:

1. The present address of the child or children named in the attached pleading is as follows:

2. The places where said child or children have lived within the last five years other than the above address are as follows:

3. The names and present addresses of the persons with whom the child or children lived during the last five years are as follows:

4. The affiant has not participated as a party, witness or in any other capacity, in any other litigation concerning the custody of said child or children in this or any other state except as follows:

5. The affiant has no information of any custody proceeding concerning the child or children pending in a court of this or any other state except as follows:

6. ...