ARTICLE 6
| Jurisdiction | Colorado |
14-6-101. Nonsupport of spouse and children - penalty.
14-6-102. Suspension of sentence. (Repealed)
14-6-103. Extradition.
14-6-104. Jurisdiction.
14-6-105. Spouse competent witness.
14-6-106. Venue.
14-6-107. Venue - home or school of child.
14-6-108. Citizenship - residence.
14-6-109. Forfeiture of bond - disposition of fines.
14-6-110. Joint liability for family expenses.
14-6-111. Legislative declaration.
14-6-112. Procedures by clerk. (Repealed)
14-6-113. Remedies additional to those now existing.
■ 14-6-101. Nonsupport of spouse and children - penalty. (1) Any person who willfully neglects, fails, or refuses to provide reasonable support and maintenance for his spouse or for his children under eighteen years of age, whether natural, adopted, or whose parentage has been judicially determined, or who willfully fails, refuses, or neglects to provide proper care, food, and clothing in case of sickness for his spouse or such children or any such children being legally the inmates of a state or county home or school for children in this state, or who willfully fails or refuses to pay to a trustee, who may be appointed by the court to receive such payment, or to the board of control of such home or school the reasonable cost of keeping such children in said home, or any person, being the father or mother of children under eighteen years of age, who leaves such children with intent to abandon such children, or any man who willfully neglects, fails, or refuses to provide proper care, food, and clothing to the mother of his child during childbirth and attendant illness is guilty of a class 5 felony. It shall be an affirmative defense, as defined in section 18-1-407, C.R.S., to a prosecution under this section that owing to physical incapacity or other good cause the defendant is unable to furnish the support, care, and maintenance required by this section. No child shall be deemed to lack proper care for the sole reason that he is being provided remedial treatment in accordance with section 19-3-103, C.R.S.
(2) Repealed.
Source: L. 11: p. 527, § 1. C.L. § 5566. CSA: C. 83, § 1. CRS 53: § 43-1-1. L. 55: p. 287, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 43-1-1. L. 73: p. 547, § 1. L. 81: (1) amended, p. 901, § 1, effective May 27. L. 87: (1) amended, p. 815, § 16, effective October 1. L. 92: (2) repealed, p. 396, § 1, effective June 3; (1) amended, p. 202, § 7, effective August 1.
I. General Consideration.
II. Elements of Offense and Excuses for Failure to Support.
III. Pleading and Practice.
Law reviews. For an article on "Ten Years of Domestic Relations in Colorado — 1940-1950", see 27 Dicta 399 (1950). For article on "The Problem of Compelling Fathers to Support Their Dependent Children", see 27 Dicta 442 (1950). For article, "A Lawyer's Advice to the Unmarried Mother", see 31 Dicta 112 (1954). For article, "Highlights of the 1955 Colorado Legislative Session — Domestic Relations", see 28 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 66 (1955). For article, "Highlights of the 1955 Legislative Session — Criminal Law and Procedure", see 28 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 69 (1955). For note, "Enforcement of Support Duties in Colorado", see 33 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 70 (1960). For note, "Aid to Families with Dependent Children — A Study of Welfare Assistance", see 44 Den. L.J. 102 (1967).
Annotator's note. Cases relevant to § 14-6-101 decided prior to its earliest source, L. 11, p. 527, § 1, have been included in the annotations to this section.
This article was held not to violate § 1 of art. V, Colo. Const. Pearman v. People, 64 Colo. 26, 170 P. 192 (1917); Wamsley v. People, 64 Colo. 521, 173 P. 425 (1918).
This section does not violate § 12 of art. II, Colo. Const., prohibiting imprisonment for debt. Martin v. People, 69 Colo. 60, 168 P. 1171 (1917); People v. Elliott, 186 Colo. 65, 525 P.2d 457 (1974).
Purpose. The felony nonsupport statute is designed to promote and protect the health and welfare of minor children and to prevent such children from becoming wards of the state. People v. Elliott, 186 Colo. 65, 525 P.2d 457 (1974).
This article does not change the law as to the civil liability of the husband to furnish his wife reasonable support; it just provides a penalty in case he fails to do so, unless excused by physical incapacity or other good cause Poole v. People, 24 Colo. 510, 52 P. 1025 (1898).
Duty to support spouse ceases when marriage is dissolved unless an order of maintenance is entered in connection with the dissolution decree. Com. of Pennsylvania v. Barta, 790 P.2d 895 (Colo. App. 1990).
The nonsupport statutes such as this have been regarded only as enforcing, and not as creating, a duty on the part of husbands and fathers with reference to the support of wives and children. Kilpatrick v. People, 64 Colo. 209, 170 P. 956 (1918).
It simply makes the willful neglect of a duty theretofore existing a felony. People v. Driscoll, 72 Colo. 115, 209 P. 869 (1922).
The supreme court was fortified in limiting the court's authority to require security for the payment of alimony by reason of the fact that with respect to orders for the payment of sums required for the support and maintenance and education of the minor children of the parties, the general assembly had enacted this section which made it a felony for a husband to neglect, fail or refuse to provide reasonable support and maintenance for his minor children under the age of 16 years. Brown v. Brown, 131 Colo. 467, 283 P.2d 951 (1955).
Therefore a father who neglects to discharge his natural, as well as his statutory, duty to his children "shall be deemed guilty of a felony", and may be imprisoned for so doing unless he provides a bond conditioned upon the support of such children. Brown v. Brown, 131 Colo. 467, 283 P.2d 951 (1955).
Formerly, the primary obligation for the support of a minor child rested upon its father, and the fact that the mother was self-supporting did not serve to relieve the father of his obligation. McQuade v. McQuade, 145 Colo. 218, 358 P.2d 470 (1960).
Obligation of mother now equal to that of father. The general assembly in 1973 reassessed the relative responsibilities of the parents with regard to support of their children and imposed an obligation on the mother equal to that of the father. People v. Elliott, 186 Colo. 65, 525 P.2d 457 (1974).
Changing legislative view of role and capabilities of mother. This enlargement of the scope of protection for minor children suggests a legislative view that the role of the mother has expanded beyond the domestic sphere to which it had been relegated and that the economic abilities and opportunities of the parents are more nearly on a parity concerning their capability of providing support for their children. People v. Elliott, 186 Colo. 65, 525 P.2d 457 (1974).
Since the father is under a legal duty or obligation to support his child in an adequate manner, resort to the courts may be had to enforce compliance, and such action is not made nonmaintainable because of statutory proceedings relating to the support of children in divorce, separate maintenance and annulment actions nor because of the statute relating to dependent and neglected children. McQuade v. McQuade, 145 Colo. 218, 358 P.2d 470 (1960).
The inherent right to support belongs to the child, and there exists no reason to hinge the enforcement of such right upon the existence or nonexistence of statutory right in the mother to obtain a divorce or separate maintenance, or upon a statute designed for children neglected by both parents. McQuade v. McQuade, 145 Colo. 218, 358 P.2d 470 (1960).
The rights of the child exist independent of the rights of the mother, and are enforceable in equity in the absence of a statute providing for relief in the express circumstances. McQuade v. McQuade, 145 Colo. 218, 358 P.2d 470 (1960).
A dismissal of complaints seeking divorce and separate maintenance is not res judicata concerning the right of a minor child to compel adequate support by his father. McQuade v. McQuade, 145 Colo. 218, 358 P.2d 470 (1960).
An alleged father of an illegitimate child, in any case where such child is under 16 years of age, may be prosecuted for failure to support it, without having been adjudged, in some prior proceeding, to be such father. Ortega v. Portales, 134 Colo. 537, 307 P.2d 193 (1957).
This section contains the provision that any man who shall willfully refuse to support his legitimate or illegitimate child under 16 years of age shall be deemed guilty of a felony. Ortega v. Portales, 134 Colo. 537, 307 P.2d 193 (1957).
No provision of the bastardy act has any bearing upon a prosecution under this section. Wamsley v. People, 64 Colo. 521, 173 P. 425 (1918).
The gravamen of the offense is not the fathering of the illegitimate child, but the failure to make provision for his support if and when it becomes a dependent child under the statute. Ortega v. Portales, 134 Colo. 537, 307 P.2d 193 (1957).
This section does not attempt to punish the father for begetting or neglecting to support the child before the section took effect, but requires a defendant, as the father of a child, to contribute to his support and maintenance, thus relieving the mother or others upon whom the burden may...
To continue reading
Request your trial