Colorado § 14-10-104.5 - Legislative declaration.

§ 14-10-104.5. Legislative declaration.

The general assembly recognizes that it is in the best interests of the parties to a marriage in which a dissolution has been granted and in which there are children of the marriage for the parties to be able to resolve disputes that arise subsequent to the dissolution in an amicable and fair manner. The general assembly further recognizes that, in most cases, it is in the best interests of the children of the marriage to have a relationship with both parents, including a parent with a disability, and that, in most cases, it is the parents' right to have a relationship with their children. The general assembly emphasizes that one of the underlying purposes of this article 10 is to mitigate the potential harm to the spouses and their children and the relationships between the parents and their children caused by the process of legal dissolution of marriage. The general assembly recognizes that when a marriage in which children are involved is dissolved, both parties either agree to or are subject to orders that contain certain obligations and commitments. The general assembly declares that the honoring and enforcing of those obligations and commitments made by both parties are necessary to maintaining a relationship that is in the best interest of the children of the marriage. Therefore, the general assembly declares that both parties should honor and fulfill all of the obligations and commitments made between the parties and ordered by the court.

Source: L. 88: Entire section added, p. 633, § 8, effective July 1. L. 98: Entire section amended, p. 1376, § 2, effective February 1, 1999. L. 2018: Entire section amended, (HB 18-1104), ch. 164, p. 1134, § 3, effective April 25.

ANNOTATION

The state has a public interest in mitigating the potential harm to children caused by the dissolution of marriage. Thus, a parent has no privacy interest in the process by which child support obligations are determined because support levels are not purely private determinations but serve a public function and are subject to court approval. Stillman v. State, 87 P.3d 200 (Colo. App. 2003).

Furthermore, the child support guidelines do not infringe upon a fundamental right. Stillman v. State, 87 P.3d 200 (Colo. App. 2003).

Nor do the child support guidelines discriminate against a suspect class or significantly interfere with a fundamental right. Stillman v. State, 87 P.3d 200 (Colo. App. 2003).

The state has a legitimate interest in requiring divorced or separated parents to provide child support based on the parties' combined gross incomes. Stillman v. State, 87 P.3d 200 (Colo. App. 2003).

Intent of act requires enforcement of child support agreement even though it does not specify a dollar amount. To allow otherwise would be to allow father to unilaterally terminate child support obligation without first obtaining an order of modification. In re Meisner, 807 P.2d 1205 (Colo. App. 1990).