2021 Colorado Code
Title 14 - Domestic Matters
Article 13 - Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
Part 1 - General Provisions
§ 14-13-103. Proceedings Governed by Other Law

This article does not govern an adoption proceeding or a proceeding pertaining to the authorization of emergency medical care for a child.

History. Source: L. 2000: Entire article R&RE, p. 1521, § 1, effective July 1.

Two proceedings are governed by other acts. Adoption cases are excluded from this Act because adoption is a specialized area which is thoroughly covered by the Uniform Adoption Act (UAA) (1994). Most States either will adopt that Act or will adopt the jurisdictional provisions of that Act. Therefore the jurisdictional provisions governing adoption proceeding are generally found elsewhere.

However, there are likely to be a number of instances where it will be necessary to apply this Act in an adoption proceeding. For example, if a State adopts the UAA then Section 3-101 of the Act specifically refers in places to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act which will become a reference to this Act. Second, the UAA requires that if an adoption is denied or set aside, the court is to determine the child's custody. UAA § 3-704. Those custody proceedings would be subject to this Act. See Joan Heifetz Hollinger, The Uniform Adoption Act: Reporter's Ruminations, 30 Fam.L.Q. 345 (1996).

Children that are the subject of interstate placements for adoption or foster care are governed by the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC). The UAA § 2-107 provides that the provisions of the compact, although not jurisdictional, supply the governing rules for all children who are subject to it. As stated in the Comments to that section: “Once a court exercises jurisdiction, the ICPC helps determine the legality of an interstate placement.” For a discussion of the relationship between the UCCJA and the ICPC see , 893 P.2d 732 (Ariz. 1995).

Proceedings pertaining to the authorization of emergency medical care for children are outside the scope of this Act since they are not custody determinations. All States have procedures which allow the State to temporarily supersede parental authority for purposes of emergency medical procedures. Those provisions will govern without regard to this Act.

Specific language of statute precludes UCCJEA application to failed adoption proceedings, however, exclusion of jurisdiction of adoption proceedings relied upon expectation that states would adopt the Uniform Adoption Act and enter a final custody order after a failed adoption based on the best interests of the child. People ex rel. A.J.C., 88 P.3d 599 (Colo. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 987, 125 S. Ct. 495, 160 L. Ed. 2d 371 (2004).

In case involving failed adoption and resulting litigation with mother located in Missouri, a UCCJA state, and child and potential adoptive parents residing in Colorado, a UCCJEA state, it was proper for Colorado court to exercise jurisdiction over question of custody of the child after Missouri court dismissed petition for adoption and ordered child to be returned to the mother's custody for the following reasons: (1) Under provisions of the UCCJA, a court of a second state can exercise jurisdiction after an initial custody decree has been entered if the court of the first state declined to exercise jurisdiction; (2) Missouri court's failure to determine custody of child according to child's best interest was akin to declining to exercise jurisdiction over custody issues, and Colorado was therefore not obligated to give full faith and credit to Missouri court's order concerning custody of the child; (3) in both Missouri and Colorado, there are provisions that authorize the court, subsequent to a failed adoption, to provide for the care and custody of the child according to the child's best interests, including a custody request from a nonparent; (4) the UCCJEA's exclusion of adoption was based on the expectation that states enacting the UCCJEA would adopt the Uniform Adoption Act, and the Uniform Adoption Act contemplates that when an adoption fails after a child has been with the prospective parents for a period of time, the court must take into account the best interests of the child in making determinations about continuing placement; and (5) Missouri does not retain jurisdiction over the case under the interstate compact on the placement of children (ICPC) since under the facts of the case, there was no proper request pursuant to the ICPC to return the child to Missouri. People ex rel. A.J.C., 88 P.3d 599 (Colo. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 987, 125 S. Ct. 495, 160 L. Ed. 2d 371 (2004).

Despite plain language in this section concerning adoption proceedings, the UCCJEA governs an adoption proceeding if a proceeding to terminate parental rights has been initiated in the context of the adoption. In re M.M.V., 2020 COA 94 , 469 P.3d 556.

Stepparent adoption proceeding required a reconciliation between this section and § 14-13-102 (4) . In re M.M.V., 2020 COA 94 , 469 P.3d 556.