ARTICLE 13 UNIFORM CHILD-CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT
| Jurisdiction | Colorado |
Editor's note: This article was numbered as article 6 of chapter 46, C.R.S. 1963. The provisions of this article were repealed and reenacted in 2000, resulting in the addition, relocation, and elimination of sections as well as subject matter. For amendments to this article prior to 2000, consult the Colorado statutory research explanatory note and the table itemizing the replacement volumes and supplements to the original volume of C.R.S. 1973 beginning on page vii in the front of this volume. Former C.R.S. section numbers for sections that were relocated as a part of the repeal and reenactment are shown in editor's notes following each section.
Law reviews: For comment, "Temporary Custody Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act: Influence Without Modification", see 48 U. Colo. L. Rev. 603 (1977); for article, "The Role of Children's Counsel in Contested Child Custody, Visitation and Support Cases", see 15 Colo. Law. 224 (1986); for article, "Waking the Dormant PKPA in Colorado", see 21 Colo. Law. 2209 (1992); for article, "Nuts and Bolts of the PKPA", see 22 Colo. Law. 2397 (1993); for article, "The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act: Part I", see 29 Colo. Law. 73 (Sept. 2000); for article, "The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act: Part II", see 29 Colo. Law. 81 (Oct. 2000); for article, "Interstate Family Law Jurisdiction: Simplifying Complex Questions", see 31 Colo. Law. 77 (Sept. 2002); for article, "Colorado's Uniform Interstate Family Support Act: 2004 Changes and Clarifications", see 33 Colo. Law. 99 (Nov. 2004); for article, "An Introduction to Family Law and the Military", see 37 Colo. Law. 69 (Oct. 2008).
14-13-101. Short title.
14-13-102. Definitions.
14-13-103. Proceedings governed by other law.
14-13-104. International application of article.
14-13-105. Effect of child-custody determination.
14-13-106. Priority.
14-13-107. (Reserved)
14-13-108. Notice to persons outside state.
14-13-109. Appearance and limited immunity.
14-13-110. Communication between courts.
14-13-111. Taking testimony in another state.
14-13-112. Cooperation between courts - preservation of records.
14-13-201. Initial child-custody jurisdiction.
14-13-202. Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.
14-13-203. Jurisdiction to modify determination.
14-13-204. Temporary emergency jurisdiction.
14-13-205. Notice - opportunity to be heard - joinder.
14-13-206. Simultaneous proceedings.
14-13-207. Inconvenient forum.
14-13-208. Jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct.
14-13-209. Information to be submitted to court.
14-13-210. Appearance of parties and child.
14-13-301. Definitions.
14-13-302. Enforcement under Hague Convention.
14-13-303. Duty to enforce.
14-13-304. Temporary visitation or parenting time.
14-13-305. Registration of child-custody determination.
14-13-306. Enforcement of registered determination.
14-13-307. Simultaneous proceedings.
14-13-308. Expedited enforcement of child-custody determination.
14-13-309. Service of petition and order.
14-13-310. Hearing and order.
14-13-311. Warrant to take physical custody of child.
14-13-312. Costs, fees, and expenses.
14-13-313. Recognition and enforcement.
14-13-314. Appeals.
14-13-401. Application and construction.
14-13-402. Severability clause.
14-13-403. Transitional provision.
This Act, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), revisits the problem of the interstate child almost thirty years after the Conference promulgated the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA). The UCCJEA accomplishes two major purposes.
First, it revises the law on child custody jurisdiction in light of federal enactments and almost thirty years of inconsistent case law. Part 2 of this Act provides clearer standards for which States can exercise original jurisdiction over a child custody determination. It also, for the first time, enunciates a standard of continuing jurisdiction and clarifies modification jurisdiction. Other aspects of the part harmonize the law on simultaneous proceedings, clean hands, and forum non conveniens.
Second, this Act provides in Part 3 for a remedial process to enforce interstate child custody and visitation determinations. In doing so, it brings a uniform procedure to the law of interstate enforcement that is currently producing inconsistent results. In many respects, this Act accomplishes for custody and visitation determinations the same uniformity that has occurred in interstate child support with the promulgation of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA).
Revision of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act
The UCCJA was adopted as law in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. A number of adoptions, however, significantly departed from the original text. In addition, almost thirty years of litigation since the promulgation of the UCCJA produced substantial inconsistency in interpretation by state courts. As a result, the goals of the UCCJA were rendered unobtainable in many cases.
In 1980, the federal government enacted the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A, to address the interstate custody jurisdictional problems that continued to exist after the adoption of the UCCJA. The PKPA mandates that state authorities give full faith and credit to other states' custody determinations, so long as those determinations were made in conformity with the provisions of the PKPA. The PKPA provisions regarding bases for jurisdiction, restrictions on modifications, preclusion of simultaneous proceedings, and notice requirements are similar to those in the UCCJA. There are, however, some significant differences. For example, the PKPA authorizes continuing exclusive jurisdiction in the original decree State so long as one parent or the child remains there and that State has continuing jurisdiction under its own law. The UCCJA did not directly address this issue. To further complicate the process, the PKPA partially incorporates state UCCJA law in its language. The relationship between these two statutes became "technical enough to delight a medieval property lawyer." Homer H. Clark, Domestic Relations § 12.5 at 494 (2d ed. 1988).
As documented in an extensive study by the American Bar Association's Center on Children and the Law, Obstacles to the Recovery and Return of Parentally Abducted Children (1993) (Obstacles Study), inconsistency of interpretation of the UCCJA and the technicalities of applying the PKPA, resulted in a loss of uniformity among the States. The Obstacles Study suggested a number of amendments which would eliminate the inconsistent state interpretations and harmonize the UCCJA with the PKPA.
The revisions of the jurisdictional aspects of the UCCJA eliminate the inconsistent state interpretations and can be summarized as follows:
1. Home state priority. The PKPA prioritizes "home state" jurisdiction by requiring that full faith and credit cannot be given to a child custody determination by a State that exercises initial jurisdiction as a "significant connection state" when there is a "home State." Initial custody determinations based on "significant connections" are not entitled to PKPA enforcement unless there is no home State. The UCCJA, however, specifically authorizes four independent bases of jurisdiction without prioritization. Under the UCCJA, a significant connection custody determination may have to be enforced even if it would be denied enforcement under the PKPA. The UCCJEA prioritizes home state jurisdiction in Section 201.
2. Clarification of emergency jurisdiction. There are several problems with the current emergency jurisdiction provision of the UCCJA § 3(a)(3). First, the language of the UCCJA does not specify that emergency jurisdiction may be exercised only to protect the child on a temporary basis until the court with appropriate jurisdiction issues a permanent order. Some courts have interpreted the UCCJA language to so provide. Other courts, however, have held that there is no time limit on a custody determination based on emergency jurisdiction. Simultaneous proceedings and conflicting custody orders have resulted from these different interpretations.
Second, the emergency jurisdiction provisions predated the widespread enactment of state domestic violence statutes. Those statutes are often invoked to keep one parent away from the other parent and the children when there is a threat of violence. Whether these situations are sufficient to invoke the emergency jurisdiction provision of the UCCJA has been the subject of some confusion since the emergency jurisdiction provision does not specifically refer to violence directed against the parent of the child or against a sibling of the child.
The UCCJEA contains a separate section on emergency jurisdiction at Section 14-13-204 which addresses these issues.
3. Exclusive continuing jurisdiction for the State that entered the decree. The failure of the UCCJA to clearly enunciate that the decree-granting State retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction to modify a decree has resulted in two major problems. First, different interpretations of the UCCJA on continuing jurisdiction have produced conflicting custody decrees. States also have different interpretations as to how long continuing jurisdiction lasts. Some courts have held that modification jurisdiction continues until the last contestant leaves the State, regardless of how many years the child has lived outside the State or how tenuous the child's connections to the State have become. Other courts have held that continuing modification jurisdiction ends as soon as the child has established a new home State, regardless of how significant the child's connections to the decree State remain. Still other States distinguish between...
To continue reading
Request your trial