Interstate Family Law Jurisdiction: Simplifying Complex Questions
Publication year | 2002 |
Pages | 77 |
2002, September, Pg. 77. Interstate Family Law Jurisdiction: Simplifying Complex Questions
Vol. 31, No. 9, Pg. 77
The Colorado Lawyer
September 2002
Vol. 31, No. 9 [Page 77]
September 2002
Vol. 31, No. 9 [Page 77]
Specialty Law Columns
Family Law Newsletter
Interstate Family Law Jurisdiction: Simplifying Complex Questions
by Angela R. Arkin
Family Law Newsletter
Interstate Family Law Jurisdiction: Simplifying Complex Questions
by Angela R. Arkin
This column is sponsored by the CBA Family Law Section to
provide information to family law practitioners. Articles are
intended to focus on practice tips and discussions of current
issues within the realm of family law. New column authors are
welcomed
Column Editors:
Gretchen Aultman, Denver, of Burns, Wall, Smith & Mueller, P.C. - (303) 830-7000, gaultman@bwsm.com; Marie Avery Moses, a domestic relations attorney - (720) 273-2103 marmoses@msn.com
Gretchen Aultman, Denver, of Burns, Wall, Smith & Mueller, P.C. - (303) 830-7000, gaultman@bwsm.com; Marie Avery Moses, a domestic relations attorney - (720) 273-2103 marmoses@msn.com
About The Author:
This month's article was written by Angela R. Arkin, Englewood, a District Court Judge in the Eighteenth Judicial District - ararkin@yahoo.com.
This month's article was written by Angela R. Arkin, Englewood, a District Court Judge in the Eighteenth Judicial District - ararkin@yahoo.com.
This article discusses the jurisdictional provisions of
various federal and state laws that concern certain family
law matters in Colorado and examines the differences among
those provisions.
Jurisdictional questions have plagued parties and family law
practitioners for years. For example, does Colorado have
jurisdiction in a given dissolution of marriage, paternity,
parental responsibility, or support case? If so, what issues
can the court decide? Does exclusive jurisdiction continue in
Colorado or may another state modify a Colorado order? When
may Colorado modify or enforce another state's order?
There is a complex interplay among long-arm statutes and
federal and state custody and support jurisdiction statutes.
The statutes governing interstate jurisdiction have undergone
five major modifications since October 20, 1994.1 However,
this "alphabet soup" of jurisdictional laws can be
deciphered using certain basic principles common to all
jurisdiction statutes and by understanding certain key
differences among them.2
The peril to attorneys who give their clients incorrect
advice about jurisdiction should not be understated - it is
significant. Clients who violate child support and parental
responsibility orders can be subject to felony and contempt
charges. Attorneys who advise them without understanding the
law can be subject to discipline.3
This article provides a structure within which practitioners
can answer complex interstate jurisdictional questions, even
before actions are filed before the court. The article
addresses jurisdictional issues as they relate to domestic
cases in Colorado under the Uniform Interstate Family Support
Act ("UIFSA"), the Parental Kidnapping Prevention
Act ("PKPA"), the Full Faith and Credit for Child
Support Orders Act ("FFCCSOA"), and the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
("UCCJEA").
Jurisdiction in Initial Interstate Matters
Personal jurisdiction gives the court legal authority over
the respondent (person).4 Subject matter jurisdiction
concerns the court's authority to deal with issues in
cases in which it renders judgment.5 Most jurisdictional
statutes require the court to have both personal and subject
matter jurisdiction. However, in certain situations,
especially cases involving children, only subject matter
jurisdiction is necessary.
Personal jurisdiction initially is acquired by service inside
or outside the state as otherwise specified by Colorado Rules
of Civil Procedure ("C.R.C.P.") 4. So-called
"snatch and serve" service on an out-of-state
resident sojourning in Colorado confers full personal
jurisdiction over the responding party.6 A waiver and
acceptance of service signed by the responding party also
confers personal jurisdiction, and subjects him or her to the
court's jurisdiction.7
Personal service outside the state gives the court limited
jurisdiction over parties, children, and property as defined
by statute.8 Service by publication is governed by statute in
matters brought under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act
("UDMA"), and differs from the requirements for
publication found in C.R.C.P. 4(h).9
Dissolution of Marriage
For the district courts of Colorado to exercise jurisdiction
over the marital relationship, one of the parties must have
been domiciled in Colorado for at least ninety days prior to
the commencement of the proceeding.10 If one party satisfies
the domiciliary requirement and the court obtains personal
jurisdiction over the person of the other party, the court
has jurisdiction under the UDMA11 to grant complete relief.12
If the nonresident spouse is served by publication, the court
has in rem jurisdiction over the status of the marriage.13
The court may make disposition of marital property located in
Colorado14 and may determine parental responsibility under
the UCCJEA.
If the nonresident spouse is served under the domestic
relations long-arm statute,15 the court may determine support
and maintenance to children and spouses in any action for
dissolution of marriage, legal separation, declaration of
invalidity of marriage, or support of children. As such, the
court may divide property within the state of Colorado and
may allocate parental responsibility, if appropriate, under
the UCCJEA.
Jurisdiction for dissolution of marriage is established under
the long-arm statute by maintenance of a matrimonial domicile
within the state. However, if one party leaves the state,
jurisdiction remains in Colorado under the long-arm statute
only if one of the parties to the marriage continues without
interruption to be domiciled within the state.
Paternity and Support
The possibility that conception could have occurred in
Colorado provides a basis for state courts to exercise
jurisdiction in determining the parentage of a child. In such
circumstances, a verified petition must be filed pursuant to
the Uniform Parentage Act16 or the UIFSA.17
One of the parties (to the conception), or the child, must be
a resident of Colorado at the time the action is filed to
give the state court subject matter jurisdiction to: (1)
determine parentage; (2) order modification of the
child's birth certificate; (3) establish the duty of
child support; (4) recover a child support debt; (5) order
payment of the mother's reasonable expenses of pregnancy
and confinement; and (6) provide for medical insurance for
the child.
Under the UIFSA's long-arm statute,18 Colorado courts
also may obtain jurisdiction to establish a spousal support
or child support order. The UIFSA allows Colorado courts to
obtain jurisdiction over a nonresident if the individual: (1)
is personally served with a summons in Colorado; (2) enters a
general appearance or files a responsive pleading; (3)
resided with the child in Colorado or resided in Colorado
while supporting the child in the state; (4) acted in a way
that resulted in the child residing in Colorado; or (5) acted
in any other way that would allow the exercise of personal
jurisdiction that is consistent with the Colorado or U.S.
Constitution.
If the obligor has no minimum contacts with Colorado, and
does not wish to submit to jurisdiction in the state to
establish support and paternity, the UIFSA allows the case to
be filed in the jurisdiction where the respondent resides. In
that situation, the responding state (rather than Colorado)
would be the issuing state for paternity and support
orders.19
Parental Responsibility
The jurisdictional concept of the UCCJEA20 and PKPA21 is
"child-state" jurisdiction. Such child-state
jurisdiction involves only jurisdiction over the subject
matter (the child) and usually arises after the child has
resided in the "home state" for more than six
months. Personal jurisdiction, therefore, is irrelevant and...
To continue reading
Request your trial