2020 Colorado Revised Statutes
Title 14 - Domestic Matters
Article 5. Uniform Interstate Family Support Act

Previous Next

Editor's note: (1) This article was numbered as article 2 of chapter 43, C.R.S. 1963. The provisions of this article were repealed and reenacted in 1993, resulting in the addition, relocation, and elimination of sections as well as subject matter. For amendments to this article prior to 1993, 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 prior to 1993 are shown in editor's notes following those sections that were relocated.

(2) The numbering used in this article conforms to the numbering used in the National Uniform Act and may not parallel the numbering found elsewhere in Colorado Revised Statutes.

Law reviews: For article, "The Colorado Uniform Interstate Family Support Act", see 23 Colo. Law. 2535 (Nov. 1994); 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).

PART 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Editor's note: (1) This article was repealed and reenacted in 1993, and this part 1 was subsequently amended with relocations in 2003, resulting in the addition, relocation, and elimination of sections as well as subject matter. For amendments to this part 1 prior to 2003, 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 and the editor's note following the article heading. Former C.R.S. section numbers prior to 2003 are shown in editor's notes following those sections that were relocated.

(2) In 1961, this article was enacted as the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. It was replaced by the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act in 1971, which repealed and reenacted the act and was in effect until 1993 when it was repealed and reenacted into the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act as it existed until 2003 when the article was amended. For the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, see article 2 of chapter 43, C.R.S. 1963 (L. 61, p. 356). For the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, see article 2 of chapter 43, C.R.S. 1963 or article 5 of title 14, C.R.S. 1973 (L. 71, p. 515).

PART 2 JURISDICTION

PART 3 CIVIL PROVISIONS OF GENERAL APPLICATION

INTRODUCTORY COMMENT

This article adds a wide variety of and procedural rules for civil cases. If there procedural provisions to existing statutory is a conflict between those provisions found

for other litigation and UIFSA rules set forth in this article, obviously UIFSA rules prevail. For example, it is unlikely that a state will have a provision for testimony by telephone or audiovisual means in a final hearing. Section 316 of this act creates such a right for an out-of-state individual. Revisions in this article shift the perspective slightly to accommodate the inclusion of a foreign support order in the equation. Many, but notall, of the provisions in this article are based upon the fact that a party does not "reside in this state." Application of these provisions is not solely based on whether the absent party resides in "another state," as formerly was the case. Rather, three distinct formulations are employed depending on the intended application of the provisions: "residing in a state;" "residing in . . . a foreign country;" or "residing outside this state." The third alternative is intentionally the broadest because it includes persons residing anywhere and is not limited to persons residing in a "foreign country" as defined in Section 102.

PART 4 ESTABLISHMENT OF SUPPORT ORDER OR DETERMINATION OF PARENTAGE

COMMENT

A fundamental principle of U.S. jurisprudence is that our courts are open to litigants with a valid cause of action. Thisarticle makes clear this principle applies

to support actions, whether initiated by a resident of the United States or of a foreign nation.

PART 5 ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER OF ANOTHER STATE WITHOUT REGISTRATION

Editor's note: This article was repealed and reenacted in 1993, and this part 5 was subsequently amended with relocations in 1997, resulting in the addition, relocation, and elimination of sections as well as subject matter. For amendments to this part 5 prior to 1997, 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 and the editor's note following the article heading. Former C.R.S. section numbers prior to 1997 are shown in editor's notes following those sections that were relocated.

INTRODUCTORY COMMENT

This article governs direct filing of an income withholding order from one state to an employer in another state. Except as provided in Section 507, the provisions of this article only apply to an interstate case and do not apply to an income-withholding order from a foreign country. While U.S. employers routinely enforce sister state income- withholding orders, enforcement of the widevariety of possible foreign support

orders would provide too many complexities and challenges to justify requiring an employer to interpret and enforce an ostensible foreign income-withholding order. Indeed, income- withholding orders from a foreign country are quite rare at this time, although instances of that enforcement remedy probably will increase in the future.

PART 6 REGISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT, AND MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT ORDER

INTRODUCTORY COMMENT

Sections 601 through 604 establish the basic procedure for the registration of a support order from another state or a foreign support order. Under RURESA when a tribunal of a responding state was requested to register and enforce an existing childsupport order, the common practice was to ignore the request; rather, a separate proceeding would be initiated for the establishment of a new support order. This practice was specifically rejected by UIFSA; this practice under RURESA created the multiple support-order system that UIFSA was specifically designed to eliminate. Under Sections 205 through 207 the oneorder system allows only one existing order to be enforced prospectively.

Sections 605 through 608 provide theprocedure for the nonregistering party to contest registration of an order, either because the order is allegedly invalid, superseded, or no longer in effect, or because the enforcement remedy being sought is opposed by the nonregistering party. Other enforcement remedies may be available without resort to the UIFSA process under the law of the responding state. See Section 104.

The registration and enforcement provisions in Sections 601 through 608 are consistent with the "recognition and enforcement" provisions of the Convention. The terms of this article and Article 7 suffice to direct international support orders into the proper channels.

SUBPART A

REGISTRATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SUPPORT ORDER

PART 7 SUPPORT PROCEEDING UNDER CONVENTION

Editor's note: This article was repealed and reenacted in 1993, and this part 7 was subsequently repealed and reenacted in 2015 resulting in the addition, relocation, or elimination of sections as well as subject matter. For amendments to this part 7 prior to 2015, consult the 2014 Colorado Revised Statutes and the Colorado statutory research explanatory note beginning on page vii in the front of this volume.

INTRODUCTORY COMMENT

This article contains provisions adapted from the Convention that could not be readily integrated into the existing body of Articles 1 through 6. For the most part, extending the coverage of UIFSA (2008) to foreign countries was a satisfactory solution to merge the appropriate Convention terms into this act. In understanding this process, it must be clearly stated that the terms of the Convention are not substantive law.

The Convention is a multilateral treaty which binds the United States and the other Convention countries to assure compliance. As such, it will be the law of the land; but thetreaty is not self-executing. See, Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 128 S.Ct. 1346, 170 L.Ed.2d 190 (2008). Thus, the ultimate enforcement of the treaty in the United States is dependent on the key implementing federal law and the enactment of both federal and state legislation which provide the mechanism for enforcing the requirements of the Convention. This act is predicated on the principle that the enactment of UIFSA (2008) in all States and federal jurisdictions will effectively implement the Convention through state law by amending Articles 1 through 6, plus the addition of this article. The treaty, inessence, establishes the framework for a system of international cooperation by emulating the interstate effect of UIFSA for international cases, especially those affected by the Convention.

In relatively few instances, the provisions of the Convention are sufficiently specific that a choice was made between amending UIFSA accordingly, with a disproportionate effect on all support orders enforced under state law, or accommodating potential conflicts by creating a separate article to apply only to Convention support orders. The choice was to draft this article as state law to minimize disruption to interstate support orders, which constitute the vast majority of orders processed under UIFSA. Note that this act is the substantive and procedural state law for: (1) responding to an application for establishment, recognition and enforcement, or modification of a Convention support order; and, (2) initiating an application to a Convention country for similar action.

The four Hague maintenance conventions that preceded the 2007

Convention, and the three prior versions of

UIFSA, have common goals. The distinctions between the jurisdictional rules in the common-law tradition in the United States, and the civil law systems in most of the countries that were parties to the earlier maintenance conventions, were obstacles to participation of the United States in any of the multilateral maintenance treaties. As the world has grown smaller and globalization has become the order of the day, reconciling the differences has become more and more important. Understanding the necessity for accommodation has made the task easier. This is not to say easy, as evidenced by the fact that the formal negotiations leading to the final text of the Convention spanned from May, 2003, to November, 2007.

The United States signed theConvention on November 23, 2007 and the Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification in 2010. Enabling federal legislation was enacted on September 29, 2014 which requires all states to enact UIFSA (2008) by the end of 2015. At that point the United States will deposit its instrument of ratification and the Convention will enter into force in the United States.

UIFSA (2008) and the 2007

Convention have far more in common than did former uniform acts and maintenance conventions, and, in fact, many provisions of the Convention are modeled on UIFSA principles. The negotiations demonstrated that it is possible to draft an international convention, which incorporates core UIFSA principles into a system for the establishment and enforcement of child support and spousal-support orders across international borders, and creates an efficient, economical, and expeditious procedure to accomplish these goals. Matters in common, however, go far beyond identical goals. The negotiations provided an opportunity for an extended interchange of ideas about how to adapt legal mechanisms to facilitate child support enforcement between otherwise disparate legal systems.

International cross-border enforcement has been far more important in Western Europe, and more recently, throughout the countries of the European Union than has been the case in the United States. On the other hand, experience with establishment and enforcement of interstate child-support orders in the United States has been building since 1950, and accelerated rapidly with enactment of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act in 1975. Clearly, the issues are far easier to deal with nationally because of the common language, currency, and legal system, and, since 1996, with the Title IV-D requirement that all states enact the same version of UIFSA. In fact, since the advent of UIFSAand Title IV-D, millions of interstate cases have been

PART 8 INTERSTATE RENDITION

Cross references: For extradition procedures generally, see article 19 of title 16.

PART 9 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

PART 10 COLORADO IMPLEMENTATION PROVISIONS

Previous Next

Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Colorado may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

2020 Colorado Revised StatutesTitle 14 - Domestic MattersArticle 5. Uniform Interstate Family Support Act

2020 Colorado Revised Statutes
Title 14 - Domestic Matters
Article 5. Uniform Interstate Family Support Act