2021 Colorado Code
Title 14 - Domestic Matters
Article 13 - Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
Part 3 - Enforcement
§ 14-13-303. Duty to Enforce

1. A court of this state shall recognize and enforce a child-custody determination of a court of another state if the latter court exercised jurisdiction in substantial conformity with this article or the determination was made under factual circumstances meeting the jurisdictional standards of this article and the determination has not been modified in accordance with this article.
2. A court of this state may utilize any remedy available under other law of this state to enforce a child-custody determination made by a court of another state. The remedies provided in this part 3 are cumulative and do not affect the availability of other remedies to enforce a child-custody determination.

History. Source: L. 2000: Entire article R&RE, p. 1531, § 1, effective July 1.

This section is similar to former § 14-13-114 as it existed prior to 2000.

This section is based on Section 13 of the UCCJA which contained the basic duty to enforce. The language of the original section has been retained and the duty to enforce is generally the same.

Enforcement of custody determinations of issuing States is also required by federal law in the PKPA, 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(a). The changes made in Part 2 of this Act now make a State's duty to enforce and not modify a child custody determination of another State consistent with the enforcement and nonmodification provisions of the PKPA. Therefore custody determinations made by a State pursuant to the UCCJA that would be enforceable under the PKPA will generally be enforced under this Act. However, if a State custody determination made pursuant to the UCCJA would not be enforceable under the PKPA, it will also not be enforceable under this Act. Thus a custody determination made by a “significant connection” jurisdiction when there is a home State is not enforceable under the PKPA regardless of whether a proceeding was ever commenced in the home State. Even though such a determination would be enforceable under the UCCJA with its four concurrent bases of jurisdiction, it would not be enforceable under this Act. This carries out the policy of the PKPA of strongly discouraging a State from exercising its concurrent “significant connection” jurisdiction under the UCCJA when another State could exercise “home state” jurisdiction.

This section also incorporates the concept of Section 15 of the UCCJA to the effect that a custody determination of another State will be enforced in the same manner as a custody determination made by a court of this State. Whatever remedies are available to enforce a local determination can be utilized to enforce a custody determination of another State. However, it remains a custody determination of the State that issued it. A child-custody determination of another State is not subject to modification unless the State would have jurisdiction to modify the determination under Part 2.

The remedies provided by this part for the enforcement of a custody determination will normally be used. This part does not detract from other remedies available under other local law. There is often a need for a number of remedies to ensure that a child-custody determination is obeyed. If other remedies would easily facilitate enforcement, they are still available. The petitioner, for example, can still cite the respondent for contempt of court or file a tort claim for intentional interference with custodial relations if those remedies are available under local law.

Law reviews. For article, “The Rights of Children and the Crisis in Custody Litigation: Modification of Custody in and out of State”, see 46 U. Colo. L. Rev. 495 (1974-75). For article, “The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act”, see 11 Colo. Law. 1224 (1982). For article, “Interstate Custody Problems Revisited”, see 11 Colo. Law. 2596 (1982).

Annotator's note. Since § 14-13-303 is similar to § 14-13-114 as it existed prior to the 2000 repeal and reenactment of this article, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.

Intent of child custody jurisdiction act. The uniform act attempts to guarantee reasonable security and continuity of environment to children by discouraging their unilateral removal from one state to another to avoid obeying custodial orders. Kraft v. District Court, 197 Colo. 10 , 593 P.2d 321 (1979).

Section 14-13-115 and this section require court to recognize valid custody decrees of other jurisdictions and not to modify such decrees unless the rendering state no longer has jurisdiction or has declined to exercise jurisdiction. Woodhouse v. District Court, 196 Colo. 558 , 587 P.2d 1199 (1978).

If the courts of another state have continuing jurisdiction over custody and have not declined to exercise that jurisdiction, then a Colorado court is precluded by this section and § 14-13-115 from exercising jurisdiction in the case, at least in the absence of a grave emergency. Brock v. District Court, 620 P.2d 11 (Colo. 1980).

The uniform act establishes additional conditions and restrictions before Colorado courts can modify existing foreign custody decrees. In re Glass, 36 Colo. App. 91, 537 P.2d 1092 (1975).

If the state which rendered the custody decree still has jurisdiction, other states cannot modify the decree. Fry v. Ball, 190 Colo. 128 , 544 P.2d 402 (1975).

A Colorado court must recognize and refrain from modifying a custody decree of another state where the sister state had jurisdiction at the time its decree was entered and has continuing jurisdiction at the time the action to modify is instituted in this state. Fry v. Ball, 190 Colo. 128 , 544 P.2d 402 (1975).

If, at the time of filing, another state is exercising continuing jurisdiction substantially in conformity with the act, a Colorado court is prohibited from exercising jurisdiction. People in Interest of K.G., 876 P.2d 1 (Colo. App. 1993).

Recognition of modification decree of another state. Jurisdiction to determine child custody may change to another state, and when that occurs the courts of this state must recognize the modification decree if the modifying state assumed jurisdiction under statutory provisions substantially in accordance with the uniform child custody jurisdiction act or under factual circumstances meeting the jurisdictional standards of this article. County of Clearwater v. Petrash, 41 Colo. App. 143, 589 P.2d 1370 (1978), aff'd in part and rev'd on other grounds, 198 Colo. 231 , 598 P.2d 138 (1979).

Mere conclusory ruling of jurisdiction by foreign court need not bind Colorado court, and the Colorado court should seek information to determine the most appropriate forum by communicating with the foreign court. Lynch v. Lynch, 770 P.2d 1383 (Colo. App. 1989).

Colorado not required to give full faith and credit to another state's custody order if order was not entered in compliance with the PKPA. Under the PKPA, a state's custody determination is in conformance with the PKPA if the court of the state has jurisdiction under its own law and the exercise of jurisdiction meets one of the conditions set forth in the PKPA. Because Nebraska, like Colorado, has adopted the UCCJEA, and the UCCJEA is substantively identical to the PKPA, the provisions of Nebraska's state law conform to the PKPA. Therefore, because Nebraska lacked jurisdiction to enter the custody order under its own law, it lacked jurisdiction to enter the order under the PKPA and Colorado is not required to recognize and enforce the order pursuant to the PKPA. In re L.S., 257 P.3d 201 (Colo. 2011).

Where New York family court referee determined that it lacked exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to modify New York custody order and declined jurisdiction, a New York Supreme Court (trial court) lacked jurisdiction to enter order in a subsequent motion to modify custody. New York has adopted the UCCJEA and, therefore, the jurisdictional provisions of New York law are substantially identical to the PKPA. Consequently, because the second New York court did not have jurisdiction over the matter under New York law, the PKPA does not require that Colorado accord full faith and credit to the second court's custody modification order and the Colorado court erred in enforcing the New York order modifying custody. In re Dedie & Springston, 255 P.3d 1142 (Colo. 2011).

Recognition of decrees of states not adopting act. Although a state has not adopted the uniform child and custody jurisdiction act, Colorado will recognize the custody decree issued by a court of that state if it has assumed jurisdiction under the standards of the act. Kraft v. District Court, 197 Colo. 10 , 593 P.2d 321 (1979).

Court may grant other than temporary relief where out-of-state application impractical. Generally, judicial relief should not extend beyond the issuance of temporary protective orders pending the application to the court of the rendering state for appropriate modification of the custody decree. Only when there are compelling reasons, articulated in the record, that render such out-of-state application impractical, should a Colorado court grant anything but temporary relief under its parens patriae jurisdiction. Brock v. District Court, 620 P.2d 11 (Colo. 1980).

Applied in In re Edilson, 637 P.2d 362 (Colo. 1981); McCarron v. District Court ex rel. County of Jefferson, 671 P.2d 953 (Colo. 1983).