2021 Colorado Code
Title 19 - Children's Code
Article 6 - Support Proceedings
§ 19-6-104. Hearing - Orders

1. If the court or delegate child support enforcement unit finds that the respondent has an obligation to support the child or children mentioned in the petition or notice, the court or delegate child support enforcement unit may enter an order directing the respondent to pay such sums for support as may be reasonable under the circumstances, taking into consideration the factors found in section 19-4-116 (6). The court or delegate child support enforcement unit may also enter an order directing the appropriate party to pay for support of the child, in an amount as may be determined by the court or delegate child support enforcement unit to be reasonable under the circumstances, for a time period which occurred prior to the entry of the support order established under this article. (1.5) At the hearing, the court shall give a verbal advisement to the parties 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. The judge or magistrate shall further advise the parties that, if genetic tests are not obtained prior to the 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.
2. If, at or before the hearing, the respondent waives his right to a hearing and stipulates to the entry of a support order, such stipulation may be presented to the court. If the court finds that the amount stipulated is reasonable under the circumstances, it may enter an order of support in accordance with the stipulation.
3. The court may enter a temporary support order to remain effective pending a final disposition of the proceeding. (3.5) Upon the filing of a proceeding under this article or upon the filing of a proceeding originating under article 13.5 of title 26, C.R.S., the court may enter an order allocating parental responsibilities pursuant to section 14-10-124 (1.5), C.R.S., except that, in matters involving a nonresident party, the court shall first determine whether it has authority to issue an order allocating parental responsibilities pursuant to article 13 of title 14, C.R.S. Nothing in this subsection (3.5) shall be construed to authorize a delegate child support enforcement unit to negotiate or mediate the allocation of parental responsibilities in any proceeding initiated under this article or article 13.5 of title 26, C.R.S.
4. The court may modify an order of support only in accordance with the provisions of and the standard for modification in section 14-10-122, C.R.S.
5. The court may order that the respondent initiate the inclusion of the child or children under a medical insurance policy currently in effect for the benefit of the respondent, purchase medical insurance for the child or children, or, in some other manner, provide for the current or future medical needs of the child or children. At the same time, the court may make a determination of whose responsibility it shall be to pay required medical insurance deductibles and copayments. (5.5) All child support orders entered pursuant to this article 6 must include the dates of birth of the parties and of the children who are the subjects of the order and the parties' residential and mailing addresses.
6. Any order made pursuant to this article shall not be exclusive.
7. The court may assess the costs of the action as part of its order.

History. Source: L. 87: Entire title R&RE, p. 812, § 1, effective October 1. L. 89: (4) amended, p. 795, § 25, effective July 1. L. 93: (5.5) added, p. 1564, § 16, effective September 1. L. 94: (1) amended, p. 1542, § 17, effective May 31. L. 97: (5.5) amended, p. 1277, § 18, effective July 1. L. 99: (5.5) amended, p. 1087, § 6, effective July 1. L. 2005: (3.5) added, p. 379, § 9, effective July 1; (1.5) added, p. 379, § 8, effective January 1, 2006. L. 2019: (5.5) amended,(HB 19-1215), ch. 270, p. 2553, § 4, effective July 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 19-7-103 as said section existed in 1986, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this title.

For the legislative declaration contained in the 1997 act amending subsection (5.5), see section 1 of chapter 236, Session Laws of Colorado 1997.

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

This section, compelling the father to care for and support an unborn child and its mother, is constitutional. Cederquist v. Archuleta, 127 Colo. 41 , 253 P.2d 431 (1953) (decided under former CSA, C. 33, § 1).

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).

Modification of a child support order entered in a parentage action is governed by the provisions of this section which requires a showing of a “change in relevant circumstances”. M.H.W. by M.E.S. v. D.J.W., 757 P.2d 1129 (Colo. App. 1988).

Juvenile court acting under § 19-1-104 (6) may enter child support order, which order must follow the provisions of this article 6 and the child support guidelines set forth in § 14-10-115 . Where delinquency court granted stipulation allocating parental responsibilities to mother, in determining support, court was required to follow the provisions of this article 6, including § 19-6-106 , which in turn requires compliance with the child support guidelines. Court erred in failing to address the factors set forth in § 14-10-115 . People in Interest of E.Q., 2020 COA 118 , 472 P.3d 1115.

Juvenile court lacks authority to determine who a parent must designate as representative payee for parent's federal social security disability insurance (SSDI) benefits. No provision of the federal Social Security Act permits a state court to determine who should serve as representative payee. While SSDI benefits constitute income for child support purposes and may be withheld or garnished to enforce child support orders, court erred in naming mother as father's representative payee. People in Interest of E.Q., 2020 COA 118 , 472 P.3d 1115.

Trial court erred as a matter of law when it applied the standard for modification of a support order pursuant to the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act when the support order was entered under the Uniform Parentage Act and the standard for modification as set forth in this section should have been applied. Ashcraft v. Allis, 747 P.2d 1274 (Colo. App. 1987).

Unless an order specifically states that it is not subject to modification, a trial court may modify a lump-sum child support order. M.F. v. L.M., 780 P.2d 69 (Colo. App. 1989).

Juvenile court properly considered the father's earning ability and the parties' agreement to sell jointly owned house in determining whether an increase in child support was warranted for child born out of wedlock and the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering increased child support upon the sale of said house. M.H.W. by M.E.S. v. D.J.W., 757 P.2d 1129 (Colo. App. 1988).

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).

Court has wide discretion in determining awards of child support. People in Interest of W.M., 642 P.2d 794 (Colo. App. 1982).

Juvenile court has wide discretion in determining awards of child support and the court's decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. M.H.W. by M.E.S. v. D.J.W., 757 P.2d 1129 (Colo. App. 1988).

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).

Rebuttal of presumption of legitimacy. Where the husband defended against a child support action on the grounds he was not the real father, the court held that the presumption that a child conceived in wedlock is the offspring of the husband is the strongest presumption known to law. It is not, however, conclusive and can only be overcome by clear and convincing proof that the husband is either impotent or had no access to the wife at any time when, according to the course of nature, conception could have occurred. People in interest of A.M.D. v. R.C.D., 29 Colo. App. 202, 481 P.2d 123 (1971).

Denver department of social services not stranger to proceedings. Where the Denver department of social services was before the juvenile court when it was awarded and accepted custody of a minor and it initially recommended placement of the child, its contention that it was in effect a stranger to the proceedings, being neither served with a summons nor given a hearing, is totally without support. City & County of Denver v. Brockhurst Boys Ranch, Inc., 195 Colo. 22 , 575 P.2d 843 (1978).

No authority to assess costs against state. Former subsection (6) (now subsection (7)) does not give the court of appeals the authority to assess costs against the state for a frivolous appeal. People in Interest of W.M., 643 P.2d 794 (Colo. App. 1982).

Applied in B.G. v. S.G., 199 Colo. 403 , 609 P.2d 121 (1980).