Colorado's Uniform Interstate Family Support Act: 2004 Changes and Clarifications

• Publication year: 2004
• Pages: 99

33 Colo.Law. 99 Colorado Lawyer 2004.

2004, November, Pg. 99. Colorado's Uniform Interstate Family Support Act: 2004 Changes and Clarifications

---

99

Vol. 33, No. 11, Pg. 99

The Colorado Lawyer
November 2004
Vol. 33, No. 11 [Page 99]

Specialty Law Columns
Family Law Newsletter
Colorado's Uniform Interstate Family Support Act: 2004 Changes and Clarifications
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 &amp Mueller, P.C. -
(303) 830-7000, gaultman@bwsm.com; Marie Avery Moses, Lone Tree, an associate at Gutterman, Griffiths & Powell, P.C. - (303) 858-8090, marmoses@msn.com

Angela Arkin
About The Author:

This month's article was written by Hon. Angela R. Arkin, Castle Rock, a District Court Judge in the Eighteenth Judicial District - ararkin@yahoo.com.

This article reviews the basics and 2004 updates of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act and Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act. These statutes impact spousal and child support obligations in interstate litigation.

Questions regarding the establishment, enforcement, and modification of child support in interstate cases have plagued parties, family law practitioners, and courts for years. The complex statutes governing interstate jurisdiction have had six major modifications since October 20, 1994.1 Senate Bill ("S.B.") 03-73 revisited this "alphabet soup" of jurisdictional laws and modified Colorado's version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ("UIFSA"), effective July 1, 2004.

One in three child support cases becomes an interstate case during a child's minority. Further, approximately one-third of all interstate child support cases had multiple orders when UIFSA was adopted in Colorado in 1995.2 Thus, it is incumbent on attorneys to familiarize themselves with the jurisdictional constructs in the current version of UIFSA. Also relevant is the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act ("FFCCSOA"),3 which was enacted in 1994 to curb multiple orders in child support cases.

This article reviews the jurisdictional framework of interstate support laws and discusses FFCCSOA in concert with UIFSA. It also addresses changes to UIFSA resulting from S.B. 03-73 that are significant for the courts and litigants in interstate paternity and support cases.4

Background

UIFSA was drafted to replace the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act ("URESA") in 1992.5 URESA was problematic for the collection of child support for many reasons; perhaps the most troubling issue was the potential for creation of multiple child support orders when a child support obligor moved to a new state.6 UIFSA was drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws ("NCCUSL") to remedy this confusion.7

Although UIFSA was intended to be a well-planned statutory scheme to remedy the problems of URESA, it was implemented by only a few states at a time. The statutory inconsistencies among the states caused significant issues for the courts and litigants.8 To remedy such problems, FFCCSOA was passed on October 20, 1994.9 FFCCSOA, which immediately applied to all fifty states, stopped the proliferation of multiple orders in child support cases. The 1996 UIFSA was implemented over time and, by January 1, 1998, had been adopted by all states.10 Nonetheless, there were long-term impacts from these various implementation dates, as discussed below.

Basic Jurisdictional
Constructs

UIFSA has two central jurisdictional preferences. The first is long-arm jurisdiction, which allows support and custody issues to be heard in the same state, even when one party has left that state. The second is continuing exclusive jurisdiction, which allows the party who stays in the state that originally issued the order ("issuing state") to continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify existing support orders in the home state, rather than chasing the other party around the country.

Long-Arm Jurisdiction

Colorado courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction in determining the parentage of a child if: (1) the parties engaged in sexual intercourse within this state that may have resulted in the conception of a child; (2) one of the parties to the conception is a resident of Colorado at the time the action is filed in this state; and (3) a verified petition is filed pursuant to UIFSA. Under UIFSA's long-arm statute,11 Colorado courts also may obtain jurisdiction to establish an order for child support, spousal support, or both.

If certain requirements are met, UIFSA allows the petitioner to obtain jurisdiction over a non-resident if the individual has not previously been subject to jurisdiction in another state. Such an individual must:

1) be personally served with a summons in Colorado;

2) enter a general appearance or file a responsive pleading in the case;

3) reside with the child in Colorado;

4) reside in Colorado while supporting the child in the state;

5) have acted in a way that resulted in the child residing in Colorado;12 or

6) have acted in any other way that would allow the exercise of personal jurisdiction that is consistent with the Constitution of Colorado or the United States.13

If the respondent has not had minimum contacts with Colorado and does not wish to submit to jurisdiction in this state, UIFSA allows a case to establish support or paternity to be filed in the jurisdiction where the respondent resides. In that situation, the respondent's state of residence, rather than Colorado, would be the issuing state for paternity and support orders.14

Continuing Exclusive
Jurisdiction

The purposes of UIFSA and FFCCSOA are practically identical. As set forth in FFCCSOA, the purpose is:

(1) to facilitate the enforcement of child support orders among the States; (2) to discourage continuing interstate controversies over child support in the interest of greater financial stability and secure family relationships for the child; and (3) to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict among State courts in the establishment of child support orders.15

Under UIFSA and FFCCSOA, any state with proper original jurisdiction that issues a child support order retains continuing exclusive jurisdiction as long as either party or the child at issue remains in the issuing state.16 If both parties and the children...