2021 Colorado Code
Title 19 - Children's Code
Article 6 - Support Proceedings
§ 19-6-101. Initiation of Proceedings - Support - Repayment of Birth-Related Debt

1. 1. Proceedings to compel parents, or other legally responsible persons, to support a child or children may be commenced by any person filing a verified petition in the court of the county where the child resides or is physically present, or in the county where the obligor parent resides, or in any county where public assistance is or was being paid on behalf of the child.
   2. Repealed.

2. A petition under this article may be filed at any time prior to the twenty-first birthday of the child.
3. Once the court has acquired jurisdiction, such jurisdiction shall be retained regardless of the child's place of residence or physical presence.
4. The minority of the petitioner or of the respondent shall in no way affect the validity of the proceedings.
5. Actions brought under this article shall be entitled, “The People of the State of Colorado in the Interest of .........., children, upon the Petition of .........., petitioner, and concerning .........., respondent.”
6. A petition filed pursuant to this article shall contain the following advisements:
   1. That a request for genetic tests shall not prejudice the requesting party in matters concerning allocation of parental responsibilities pursuant to section 14-10-124 (1.5), C.R.S.; and
   2. That, if genetic tests are not obtained prior to a legal establishment of paternity and submitted into evidence prior to the entry of the final order establishing paternity, the genetic tests may not be allowed into evidence at a later date.

History. Source: L. 87: Entire title R&RE, p. 811, § 1, effective October 1. L. 89: (1) and (2) amended, p. 795, § 22, effective July 1. L. 91: (1) amended, p. 254, § 14, effective July 1. L. 95: (1) amended, p. 1398, § 3, effective July 1. L. 2005: (6) added, p. 379, § 6, effective January 1, 2006. L. 2006: (6)(b) amended, p. 516, § 3, effective August 7.

1. This section was contained in a title that was repealed and reenacted in 1987. Provisions of this section, as it existed in 1987, are similar to those contained in 19-7-101 as said section existed in 1986, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this title.
2. Subsection (1)(b)(II) provided for the repeal of subsection (1)(b), effective June 30, 1999. (SeeL. 95, p. 1398.)

Law reviews. For note, “Enforcement of Support Duties in Colorado”, see 33 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 70 (1960).

Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.

This article provides for a simple civil proceeding requiring parents to support their children, as their means permit. People in Interest of L.B., 29 Colo. App. 101, 482 P.2d 1010 (1970), aff'd, 179 Colo. 11 , 498 P.2d 1157 (1972), appeal dismissed mem., 410 U.S. 976, 93 S. Ct. 1497, 36 L. Ed. 2d 173 (1973).

This section, from the time it became a law, requires a defendant, as the father of a child, to contribute to its support and maintenance, thus relieving the mother or others upon whom the burden may chance to fall. Ortega v. Portales, 134 Colo. 537 , 307 P.2d 193 (1957) (decided under former § 22-1-1 , CRS 53).

Juvenile court maintains jurisdiction in support cases where the child's parents are married or where the paternity of the child is not contested. Marital status is irrelevant and does not preclude a support action under this article. People ex rel. S.E.G., 213 P.3d 1033 (Colo. App. 2009).

Duty of support until 21 years or emancipation not abrogated. There is no general mandate in subsection (2) of this section or former § 19-1-103 (3) or § 13-22-101 which abrogates the duty of support a parent has toward his minor child until the age of 21 or emancipation. In re Weaver, 39 Colo. App. 523, 571 P.2d 307 (1977).

The language with regard to support is specifically not limited to parents. People in Interest of R.J.G., 38 Colo. App. 148, 557 P.2d 1214 (1976).

Custodian with legal obligation to support can be compelled to pay. The custodian of an adjudicated child in need of supervision with a legal obligation to support that child is properly within the scope of the juvenile court jurisdiction and can be compelled to pay support for the maintenance of said child. People in Interest of R.J.G., 38 Colo. App. 148, 557 P.2d 1214 (1976).

And such person can intervene in child in need of supervision proceedings. Since the juvenile court has the power to compel legally responsible persons to support a child, it necessarily follows that a person furnishing support to a child in accordance with an order of the juvenile court has the right to intervene in a child in need of supervision proceeding as an interested party for the purpose of recovering the cost of that support. People in Interest of R.J.G., 38 Colo. App. 148, 557 P.2d 1214 (1976).

Although the Colorado Children's Code is designed to primarily protect the welfare and safety of Colorado children, nothing in the code requires that the child to be supported reside in the state. Therefore, father's argument that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter a support order where the children to be supported lived in Russia was invalid. People ex rel. A.K., 72 P.3d 402 (Colo. App. 2003).

There is no ambiguity in the wording of former articles 6 and 7 (new articles 4 and 6) of the Colorado Children's Code. It is quite clear that paternity and support issues are to be determined under article 6 and article 7 is to be used only for the determination of support where paternity is not in dispute. It was error for the court to have conducted a paternity proceeding under the petition for support proceedings. People in Interest of L.B., 29 Colo. App. 101, 482 P.2d 1010 (1970), aff'd, 179 Colo. 11 , 498 P.2d 1157 (1972), appeal dismissed mem., 410 U.S. 976, 93 S. Ct. 1497, 36 L. Ed. 2d 173 (1973); B.G. v. S.G., 199 Colo. 403 , 609 P.2d 121 (1980).

Determination of paternity precedes support obligation. The provision for support proceedings presupposes that paternity has been established either by a paternity proceeding or by acknowledgment of paternity by the father in writing or by furnishing support. In re People in Interest of L.B., 179 Colo. 11 , 498 P.2d 1157 (1972), appeal dismissed mem., 410 U.S. 976, 93 S. Ct. 1497, 36 L. Ed. 2d 173 (1973).

Under the present statutory scheme, where paternity is contested, a support order cannot be entered under this article absent a paternity determination made within the framework provided by the article 4 of this title. People in Interest of R.T.L., 780 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1989).

Article 4 of this title provides the procedures by which a paternity determination is to be made when paternity is disputed. In the absence of a paternity determination, no child support order can be made against a putative father pursuant to this article unless paternity is uncontested. This is so because, before any support order can be entered under this article, the court must find that the person from whom support is sought is a parent or other person legally obligated to support the child. People in Interest of R.T.L., 780 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1989).

In cases in which paternity is disputed, whether in a proceeding under this article or article 4, paternity must be determined according to the procedures outlined under this article before the legal obligation for support can be imposed. People in Interest of R.T.L., 780 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1989).

The issue of paternity may not be adjudicated as an adjunct of support proceedings since the exclusive means of adjudicating contested paternity is under the article concerning paternity proceedings. In re People in Interest of L.B., 179 Colo. 11 , 498 P.2d 1157 (1972), appeal dismissed mem., 410 U.S. 976, 93 S. Ct. 1497, 36 L. Ed. 2d 173 (1973).

Limitations bar to paternity actions did not violate equal protection. A mother could bring actions to establish paternity for purposes of support only under article 6 of the Colorado Children's Code, as it existed prior to its 1977 repeal and reenactment, providing for paternity proceedings, and if she failed to bring them before the child reaches the age of five years, the actions were thereafter barred, and such a result did not violate the equal protection guaranty of the constitution. In re People in Interest of L.B., 179 Colo. 11 , 498 P.2d 1157 (1972), appeal dismissed mem., 410 U.S. 976, 93 S. Ct. 1497, 36 L. Ed. 2d 173 (1973).

Nor did different limitations period for support actions. When a former statute provided that no proceeding to establish paternity or furnish support should be initiated after a child was five years old unless the father had acknowledged paternity in writing or by furnishing support, whereas proceedings to compel fathers of illegitimate children or other legally responsible persons to support a child might be filed any time before the child's eighteenth birthday, there was no violation of the equal protection clause. In re People in Interest of L.B., 179 Colo. 11 , 498 P.2d 1157 (1972), appeal dismissed mem., 410 U.S. 976, 93 S. Ct. 1497, 36 L. Ed. 2d 173 (1973).

Where child was conceived and born during wedlock and is presumed legitimate until the presumption is rebutted, petitioner cannot be deprived of the right to proceed under this article by the mere denial of paternity by respondent. People in Interest of R.M., 37 Colo. App. 209, 548 P.2d 1282 (1975); B.G. v. S.G., 199 Colo. 403 , 609 P.2d 121 (1980).

Effect of presumption of legitimacy in support proceedings. A child born in wedlock who has the benefit of the strong presumption of legitimacy should reasonably be able to rely on that presumption in seeking support absent a judicial action by the presumed father challenging paternity. B.G. v. S.G., 199 Colo. 403 , 609 P.2d 121 (1980).

Respondent's bare denial of paternity is insufficient to require termination of proceedings under this article. People in Interest of R.M., 37 Colo. App. 209, 548 P.2d 1282 (1975).

Effect of affirmative defense of nonaccess and denial of paternity. Where a proceeding for support is commenced within the statutory period allowed by subsection (2) and the respondent denies paternity and asserts the affirmative defense of nonaccess, the proceeding then becomes one under the Uniform Parentage Act to establish paternity and to compel support. People in Interest of S.K.H., 42 Colo. App. 126, 594 P.2d 594 (1979).