Colorado § 14-4-107 - Family violence justice fund - creation - grants from fund - definitions.

§ 14-4-107. Family violence justice fund - creation - grants from fund - definitions.

(1) There is hereby established in the state treasury the family violence justice fund, hereafter referred to as the "fund". Pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, the state court administrator is authorized to make grants from the fund directly to qualifying organizations providing civil legal services to indigent residents of the state of Colorado.

(2) Grants from the fund shall be used to fund qualifying organizations to provide legal advice, representation, and advocacy for and on behalf of indigent clients who are victims of family violence. Moneys from the fund may be provided for services that include, but are not limited to:

(a) The provision of direct legal representation to victims of family violence in resolving their civil legal matters and removing impediments to the elimination of family violence. Such representation may include, but need not be limited to, representation in any protection order proceeding; action for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or declaration of invalidity of marriage; action for dissolution of a civil union, legal separation, or declaration of invalidity of a civil union; paternity action; child custody action; proceeding to establish or enforce child support; administrative hearings; or any other judicial actions in which family violence is an issue or in which legal representation is necessary to protect the interests of a victim of family violence.

(b) The provision of clinics designed to educate and assist indigent victims of family violence in the proceedings set forth in paragraph (a) of this subsection (2);

(c) The provision of legal information and advice to victims of family violence, referrals to appropriate persons or agencies, and the provision of emergency assistance in appropriate cases by telephone, electronic communication, or other appropriate means.

(3) A qualifying organization seeking to receive a grant from the fund shall submit an application each year to the state court administrator on a form provided by such administrator. The application form shall request any information which the administrator may need in determining the qualifications of the organization for receipt of a grant. Commencing July 1, 1999, and quarterly thereafter, the state court administrator shall distribute grants from the fund, subject to available appropriations, to a qualifying organization for each county or city and county based upon the following formula:

(a) The total moneys shall be disbursed in proportion to the number of persons living below the poverty line in each county or city and county as determined by the most recent census published by the bureau of the census of the United States department of commerce.

(b) If there is more than one qualifying organization within a county or city and county, the proportionate share of the fund for such county or city and county disbursed to each such qualifying organization shall be allocated in proportion to the number of indigent family violence clients served by each qualifying organization or its predecessor in the preceding year.

(4) (a) In addition to any appropriation from the general fund, the state court administrator is authorized to accept on behalf of the state any funds, grants, gifts, or donations from any private or public source for the purpose of implementing this section. All private and public funds received through grants, gifts, or donations shall be transmitted to the state treasurer who shall credit the same to the family violence justice fund.

(b) The moneys in the fund shall be subject to annual appropriation by the general assembly for the direct and indirect costs associated with the administration of this section. The state court administrator of the judicial department, subject to annual appropriation by the general assembly, is authorized to expend moneys appropriated to the department from the fund to qualifying organizations for the purposes described in this section; except that the amount expended for indirect costs associated with the administration of this section shall not exceed three percent of the moneys appropriated to the fund in any fiscal year. All investment earnings derived from the deposit and investment of the moneys in the fund shall be credited to the fund. Any moneys not appropriated shall remain in the fund and shall not be transferred or revert to the general fund of the state at the end of any fiscal year.

(c) (I) In addition to the money paid into the fund pursuant to this subsection (4) and subsection (4.5) of this section, the general assembly shall appropriate money from the economic recovery and relief cash fund, created in section 24-75-228, as enacted by Senate Bill 21-291, enacted in 2021, to the office of the state court administrator to be used for the programs and purposes described in subsection (2) of this section.

(II) Money appropriated pursuant to subsection (4)(c)(I) of this section from the economic recovery and relief cash fund, created in section 24-75-228, as enacted by Senate Bill 21-291, enacted in 2021, must only fund programs and purposes that also conform with the allowable purposes set forth in the federal "American Rescue Plan Act of 2021", Pub.L. 117-2, as the act may be subsequently amended. The office of the state court administrator may use up to ten percent of any money appropriated pursuant to subsection (4)(c)(I) of this section for development and administrative costs incurred pursuant to this section in the provision of programs and services allowed pursuant to the federal "American Rescue Plan Act of 2021", Pub.L. 117-2, as the act may be subsequently amended.

(4.5) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the state court administrator shall apply the moneys generated from fees collected pursuant to section 13-32-101 (1)(a), (1)(a.5), (1)(b), and (1)(b.5), C.R.S., and transferred pursuant to section 13-32-101 (5)(a)(X) and (5)(b)(II), C.R.S., to grants to qualifying organizations that provide services described in subsection (2) of this section for or on behalf of indigent persons or their families, which persons are married, separated, or divorced or parties to a civil union or an invalidated, legally separated, or dissolved civil union.

(5) For purposes of this section:

(a) "Administrator" means the state court administrator in the state judicial department.

(b) "Family violence" has the same meaning as "domestic abuse" as set forth in section 13-14-101 (2), C.R.S.

(c) "Fund" means the family violence justice fund.

(d) "Indigent" means a person whose income does not exceed one hundred twenty-five percent of the current federal poverty guidelines determined annually by the United States department of health and human services.

(e) "Protection order" has the same meaning as set forth in section 18-6-803.7 (1)(b.5), C.R.S.

(f) "Qualifying organization" means an organization that:

(I) Provides full service civil legal services to indigent clients;

(II) Is based in Colorado;

(III) Is exempt from taxation pursuant to section 501 (c)(3) of the internal revenue code; and

(IV) Obtains more than thirty-three percent of its funding from sources other than grants from the fund.

Source: L. 99: Entire section added, p. 1178, § 5, effective June 2. L. 2003: (2)(a) and (5)(e) amended, p. 1010, § 13, effective July 1. L. 2004: (5)(b) amended, p. 554, § 9, effective July 1. L. 2009: (4.5) added, (SB 09-068), ch. 264, p. 1211, § 6, effective July 1. L. 2010: (3)(a) amended, (HB 10-1422), ch. 419, p. 2069, § 25, effective August 11. L. 2011: (4.5) amended, (HB 11-1303), ch. 264, p. 1153, § 22, effective August 10. L. 2013: (2)(a) and (4.5) amended, (SB 13-011), ch. 49, p. 162, § 12, effective May 1. L. 2014: (5)(e) amended, (HB 14-1363), ch. 302, p. 1263, § 10, effective May 31. L. 2021: (4)(c) added, (SB 21-292), ch. 291, p. 1721, § 2, effective June 22.

Editor's note: In 2003, subsection (5)(e), as enacted in 1999, was relettered on revision as (5)(f), and subsection (5)(f), as enacted in 1999 and as amended by House Bill 03-1117, was relettered on revision as (5)(e) to put the defined terms in alphabetical order. (For House Bill 03-1117, see L. 2003, p. 1010.)

Cross references: (1) For the internal revenue code, see the federal "Internal Revenue Code of 1986", title 26 of the United States Code.

(2) For the legislative declaration in SB 21-292, see section 1 of chapter 291, Session Laws of Colorado 2021.

DESERTION AND NONSUPPORT

ARTICLE 5

Uniform Interstate Family Support Act

PART 1

GENERAL PROVISIONS

14-5-101. Short title.

14-5-102. Definitions.

14-5-103. State tribunals and support enforcement agency.

14-5-104. Remedies cumulative.

14-5-105. Application of article to resident of foreign country and foreign support proceeding.

PART 2

JURISDICTION

14-5-201. Bases for jurisdiction over nonresident.

14-5-202. Duration of personal jurisdiction.

14-5-203. Initiating and responding tribunals of this state.

14-5-204. Simultaneous proceedings.

14-5-205. Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support order.

14-5-206. Continuing jurisdiction to enforce child support order.

14-5-207. Determination of controlling child support order.

14-5-208. Child support orders for two or more obligees.

14-5-209. Credit for payment.

14-5-210. Application of article to nonresident subject to personal jurisdiction.

14-5-211. Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify spousal-support order.

PART 3

CIVIL PROVISIONS OF GENERAL APPLICATION

14-5-301. Proceedings under article.

14-5-302. Proceeding by minor parent.

14-5-303. Application of law of this state.

14-5-304. Duties of initiating tribunal.

14-5-305. Duties and powers of responding tribunal.

14-5-306. Inappropriate tribunal.

14-5-307. Duties of support enforcement agency.

14-5-308. Duty of attorney general.

14-5-309. Private counsel.

14-5-310. Duties of state information agency.

14-5-311. Pleadings and accompanying documents.

14-5-312. Nondisclosure of information in exceptional circumstances.

14-5-313. Costs and fees.

14-5-314. Limited immunity of petitioner.

14-5-315. Nonparentage as defense.

14-5-316. Special rules of evidence and procedure.

14-5-317. Communications between tribunals.

14-5-318. Assistance with discovery.

14-5-319. Receipt and disbursement of payments.

PART 4

ESTABLISHMENT OF SUPPORT ORDER OR DETERMINATION OF PARENTAGE

14-5-401. Establishment of support order.

14-5-402. Proceeding to determine parentage.

PART 5

ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER OF ANOTHER STATE WITHOUT REGISTRATION

14-5-501. Employer's receipt of income-withholding order of another state.

14-5-502. Employer's compliance with income-withholding order of another state.

14-5-503. Employer's compliance with two or more income-withholding orders.

14-5-504. Immunity from civil liability.

14-5-505. Penalties for noncompliance.

14-5-506. Contest by obligor.

14-5-507. Administrative enforcement of orders.

PART 6

REGISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT, AND MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT ORDER

SUBPART A

REGISTRATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SUPPORT ORDER

14-5-601. Registration of order for enforcement.

14-5-602. Procedure to register order for enforcement.

14-5-603. Effect of registration for enforcement.

14-5-604. Choice of law.

SUBPART B

CONTEST OF VALIDITY OR ENFORCEMENT

14-5-605. Notice of registration of order.

14-5-606. Procedure to contest validity or enforcement of registered support order.

14-5-607. Contest of registration or enforcement.

14-5-608. Confirmed order.

SUBPART C

REGISTRATION AND MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDER OF ANOTHER STATE

14-5-609. Procedure to register child support order of another state for modification.

14-5-610. Effect of registration for modification.

14-5-611. Modification of child support order of another state.

14-5-612. Recognition of order modified in another state.

14-5-613. Jurisdiction to modify child support order of another state when individual parties reside in this state.

14-5-614. Notice to issuing tribunal of modification.

SUBPART D

REGISTRATION AND MODIFICATION OF FOREIGN CHILD SUPPORT ORDER

14-5-615. Jurisdiction to modify child support order of foreign country.

14-5-616. Procedure to register child support order of foreign country for modification.

PART 7

SUPPORT PROCEEDING UNDER CONVENTION

14-5-701. Definitions.

14-5-702. Applicability.

14-5-703. Relationship of state department of human services to United States central authority.

14-5-704. Initiation by state department of human services of support proceeding under Convention.

14-5-705. Direct request.

14-5-706. Registration of Convention support order.

14-5-707. Contest of registered Convention support order.

14-5-708. Recognition and enforcement of registered Convention support order.

14-5-709. Partial enforcement.

14-5-710. Foreign support agreement.

14-5-711. Modification of Convention child support order.

14-5-712. Personal information - limit on use.

14-5-713. Record in original language - English.

PART 8

INTERSTATE RENDITION

14-5-801. Grounds for rendition.

14-5-802. Conditions of rendition.

PART 9

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

14-5-901. Uniformity of application and construction.

14-5-902. Transitional provision.

14-5-903. Severability clause.

PART 10

COLORADO IMPLEMENTATION PROVISIONS

14-5-1001 to

14-5-1007. (Repealed)

PREFATORY NOTE

I. History of Uniform Family Support Acts

A. URESA and RURESA

In 1950 the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), now more commonly referred to as the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), began a series of uniform acts dealing with cases involving establishment, enforcement, and modification of orders for "any duty of support" across state lines. This evolving process started with a revolutionary idea entitled the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), promulgated in 1950, and amended in 1952 and 1958. Further amendments in 1968 were so significant that the act was renamed the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (RURESA). Ultimately, all the states enacted one or more versions of the reciprocal support enforcement acts. A comprehensive history of the creation process from 1950 through 1968 is provided by William J. Brockelbank &Felix Infausto, Interstate Enforcement of Family Support (Bobbs-Merrill Co., 2d ed. 1971). As with most revolutions, without it subsequent development would not have been possible.

B. UIFSA (1992) (1996)

By 1988, however, problems had arisen regarding the application of RURESA in practice. After four iterations that lasted over four decades, revisiting the subject was deemed necessary. A drafting committee began to prepare amendments for RURESA, but the task proved more formidable than expected. The result was the promulgation of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, UIFSA (1992), which was designed to serve as a complete replacement for URESA and RURESA. In 1993 Arkansas and Texas were the first to enact the new act, and within three years thirty-five states had adopted it.

The year 1996 was an eventful one for UIFSA. First, a drafting committee was convened in spring 1996 in response to requests from representatives of employer groups for specific statutory directions regarding interstate child-support income withholding orders. Second, the child-support community (especially the state programs funded under title IV-D of the Social Security Act) requested a substantive and procedural review. As a result, the NCCUSL at its annual conference in July adopted significant amendments and promulgated UIFSA (1996). Less than one month later, the U.S. Congress assured that nationwide acceptance of the amended Act was virtually certain. In the "welfare reform" legislation passed in August 1996, officially known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), the enactment of UIFSA, as amended, was mandated as a condition of state eligibility for the federal funding of child support enforcement and even under exigent circumstances to continued receipt of subsidies for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), as follows:

Sec. 321. Adoption of Uniform State Laws (42 U.S.C. § 666) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

(f) Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. In order to satisfy (42 U.S.C. § 654(20)(A)), on and after January 1, 1998, each state must have in effect the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, as approved by the American Bar Association on February 9, 1993, together with any amendments officially adopted before January 1, 1998, by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996), as amended by the Welfare Reform Technical Corrections Act of 1997.

In accordance with this "federal mandate," all states enacted UIFSA (1996).

C. UIFSA (2001)

In 2000 the child-support community again requested that the act be reviewed and amended as appropriate in the light of the years of experience with the 1992 and 1996 versions. Further, beginning in 1993 there had been an extraordinary amount of comprehensive training on the act by the child-support enforcement agencies throughout the nation and associated agencies and organizations of those agencies, e.g., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE); National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA); Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association (ERICSA); and Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council (WICSEC). A significant consequence of this attention was that the provisions of UIFSA were far more familiar to those who administered it than ever was true of its predecessor acts, URESA and RURESA.

The drafting committee meeting in 2001 led to several substantive and procedural amendments, which clarified and extended the act without making any fundamental change in the earlier policies and procedures. The widespread acceptance of UIFSA has been due primarily to the fact that representatives of the child support enforcement community mentioned above participated actively in the drafting of every version of the act, including UIFSA (2008).

When Congress mandated that UIFSA (1996) must be in place in all states by 1998, most interested parties viewed that action as an unalloyed benefit for the promulgation of the uniform act. Although all states promptly adopted UIFSA (1996), in retrospect, the federal action became a mixed blessing when it partially froze further development of the act. Through the development of consecutively promulgated versions of the act, i.e., UIFSA (2001) and UIFSA (2008), UIFSA (1996) was withdrawn by NCCUSL as being no longer appropriate for enactment. The federal mandate, however, remains and as of January 1, 2015, UIFSA (1996) was in force in twenty five (25) states. The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) routinely granted waivers to any state requesting authority to enact UIFSA (2001), or, with a deferred effective date, UIFSA (2008). Using the waiver authority, as of January 1, 2015, seventeen states had enacted UIFSA (2001), and twelve states had approved UIFSA (2008), contingent upon the United States' ratification of the 2007 Convention. The current expectation is that all states, or at least a substantial majority of the remaining states will enact this version, UIFSA (2008), by the end of 2015.

For comprehensive discussions of many of the events described above, see Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, 9 Part IB U.L.A. 159, 291, 471 (2005); Symposium on International Enforcement of Child Support, 43 Fam. L.Q. No. 1, Spring 2009 (1-160 pp., John J. Sampson issue editor); John J. Sampson and Barry J. Brooks, Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (2001) with Prefatory Note and Comments (with Still More Unofficial Annotations), 36 Fam. L.Q. 329 (2002); John J. Sampson, Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (1996), Statutory Text, Prefatory Note, and Commissioners Comments (with More Unofficial Annotations), 32 Fam. L.Q. 385 (1998); John J. Sampson, Uniform Interstate Family Support Act with Unofficial Annotations, 27 Fam. L.Q. 91 (1993).

Case law developments are found in Kurtis D. Kemper, Construction and Application of Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, 18 A.L.R. 6th 97 (originally published in 2001); Kurtis D. Kemper, Validity, Construction, and Application of Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738B State Cases, 18 A.L.R. 6th 97 (originally published in 2006).

In sum, the original act, UIFSA (1992), was followed by two sets of amendments in 1996, and 2001. Throughout, the basic principles have remained constant, while the details have been refined by experience in the field. This version is the third set of significant amendments to the act, referred to in these comments as UIFSA (2008).

II. International Maintenance Orders

A. URESA and RURESA; Minimal Attention to International Orders

URESA (1950, 1952, and 1958) did not take into account enforcement of child-support or spousal-support orders that involved a foreign country. "State" was defined as one of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico. The 1958 amendments to URESA expanded the definition to "any state, territory or possession of the United States and the District of Columbia in which this or a substantially reciprocal law has been enacted."

RURESA (1968) made a significant change to the complete absence of attention to international support orders by expanding the definition of "state" to "any foreign jurisdiction in which this or substantially similar reciprocal law is in effect." Contemporaneous commentary indicated that the beneficiary of this amendment would be Canada, or at least certain Canadian provinces. The thought was expressed that the United States Department of State might negotiate a treaty with Canada, or that under a redefinition of the term "state" several Canadian provinces would be included as jurisdictions that would reciprocally enforce U.S. support orders.

B. UIFSA (1992) (1996); Minor Changes in Treatment of International Orders

The basic approach of UIFSA (1992) was to maintain the RURESA provision quoted above with the following minor modification: "State . . . includes a foreign jurisdiction that has established procedures for issuance and enforcement of support orders which are substantially similar to the procedures under this [Act]." UIFSA (1996) continued the basic provisions by adding that the foreign jurisdiction might have enacted a law that was also "substantially similar" to URESA or RURESA. Further, an amendment to Section 304 recognized that courts in Canadian provinces entered provisional orders for support to accompany their outgoing requests for establishment and enforcement, and required a provisional order from a state of the United States in order to establish a support order in Canada.

C. UIFSA (2001); Bilateral Agreements Recognized

In August 1996 PRWORA was enacted just three weeks after the promulgation of UIFSA (1996), which continued the approach of RURESA and UIFSA (1992), i.e., define "state" as including a foreign country with a "substantially similar" law to UIFSA. Indeed, this approach remains the law on the statute books of those U.S. jurisdictions that continue UIFSA (1996) in effect. UIFSA (2001) deleted the reference to a foreign country having a "substantially similar law" to URESA or RURESA. Although the revised act did specifically recognize the existence of bilateral agreements between the United States and foreign countries or their political subdivisions, UIFSA (2008) is specifically designed to accommodate U.S. domestic law to international family support orders, especially those resulting under the new Hague Convention of November 23, 2007.

In short, the attention paid in the uniform support acts to issues involving foreign support orders initially was relatively limited until the advent of UIFSA (2001). Previously, in 1996 PRWORA tied the significant federal subsidy for child-support enforcement to the universal enactment of UIFSA (1996), and also laid the groundwork for greatly increased federal activity for reaching bilateral agreements on child support enforcement with foreign countries. The federal act authorized the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to enter into international agreements with foreign reciprocating countries with support enforcement procedures substantially in conformity with such procedures in the United States. Individual U.S. states were also encouraged to enter into reciprocal arrangements with the foreign jurisdictions with which they had the greatest number of international cases.

In response, the U.S. State Department formed teams of negotiators to provide for bilateral agreements with a variety of foreign countries. Between 1998 and 2008, the United States entered into bilateral agreements with thirteen nations and eleven Canadian provinces (the federal government in Canada lacks jurisdiction over child-support orders). See http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/ international/index.html.

To accommodate the new world of bilateral orders on the federal level, UIFSA (2001) redefined "state" to encompass foreign countries with bilateral agreements with the United States. Despite repeated requests to Congress to mandate adoption of that version in order to facilitate increased international activity in child-support enforcement, no congressional action was taken through the end of 2008; see Section 102(26), infra, for the text of UIFSA (2001) and the entirely new approach in UIFSA (2008).

D. The New Hague Maintenance Convention

As of June 1, 2003, there were several child support enforcement agreements among countries. One widely accepted agreement, which is largely hortatory and without practical effect, was sponsored by the United Nations in 1956 and referred to as the New York Convention. In addition, there are four agreements promulgated by The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HccH), two covering enforcement of child-support orders in 1958 and maintenance orders in 1973, and two dealing with applicable law in 1956 and 1973 (a civil law concept). These conventions operate primarily between European nations, and came to be viewed by HccH as out-of-date and relatively ineffective. In addition, there are a welter of regional agreements regarding enforcement of family maintenance orders. The United States is not a party to any of these multilateral agreements.

Beginning in June 2003, and continuing through November 2007, more than 70 countries met in The Hague, Netherlands, in five separate negotiating sessions to forge a new Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance.

The United States delegation, headed by the U.S. State Department and including members from OCSE and other experts, was a crucial participant throughout the term of negotiations. It was clearly a goal of all the parties engaging in the negotiations that the United States be an active party and ultimately adopt the Convention.

As a first step, the Convention was signed by the United States at The Hague, Netherlands, on November 23, 2007. In context, this initial signature represents a commitment by the executive branch of the federal government to make a good faith effort to bring the Convention into force. The Senate has given its advice and consent to the Convention. When it is signed by the President, and the appropriate documents are filed in The Hague, the federal preemption of the issue via the treaty clause will be sufficient to make the Convention "the law of the land." See U.S. Const. art. VI. cl. 2. However, because this multilateral treaty is not self-executing, additional federal or state statutory enactments are necessary to enable the treaty and make it readily accessible to bench and bar. Because establishment, enforcement, and modification of family support are basically matters of state law, from the perspective of the Uniform Law Commission the vehicle for the acceptance into force of the new Convention is a revision of UIFSA (2001), hereafter called UIFSA (2008). In time, it is anticipated the new Hague Maintenance Convention will achieve a high level of integration with many other countries.

III. Drafting Principles for UIFSA (2008)

The basic principles underlying the drafting of UIFSA (2008) anticipated a strictly limited revision of the act in order to integrate the appropriate provisions of the new Convention into state law. Because UIFSA (2001) had such a wide influence on the text of the new Convention, in very many instances the principles, and sometimes almost the exact text, of the Convention were already contained in UIFSA (2001). The clear drafting goal was to integrate the Convention into state law, and not to revise UIFSA (2001) in a substantive manner. Most frequently the amendment to the existing text was merely to add "or a foreign country" to the directives about how a "tribunal of this state" should deal with an order or another action of a "state." Correspondingly, the definition of "state" no longer contains the legal fiction that a foreign country is a state of the United States.

Similarly, a significant portion of the language of the Convention need not be included in state law because that text speaks to the "Contracting States," that is, to the countries in which the Convention will come into force. A substantial percentage of the articles in the Convention are directed to the agreement between nation states or their political subdivisions, which do not implicate state tribunals. A majority of the provisions, however, do speak to the "competent authorities," which means to those tribunals charged with the obligation of applying the Convention to actual support orders. In sum, with relatively minimal amendments, the text of UIFSA (2008) combines the principles of UIFSA and the Convention with the required actions of a state tribunal to put the Convention into effect.

There are some instances in which the text of UIFSA (2008) and the Convention differ in a manner that cannot be reconciled by fiat. On these occasions it is necessary to accommodate the Convention language to state law in order to avoid conflict between the Convention and the uniform state law. A choice had to be made; either substantially amend the text of UIFSA (2001), or create an independent set of rules to accommodate the differences between UIFSA and the Convention. The latter was the preferred decision. An all-new Article 7 constitutes a stand-alone portion of the act designed to direct a "tribunal of this state" on limited special practices and handling deemed to be necessary for establishing or enforcing a Convention support order. This decision was based on the conclusion that a limited number of specialized rules for Convention orders would result in a simpler, smoother transition than attempting to integrate new rules into the millions of existing child- support orders.

UIFSA (2008) also may supply answers to some of the questions that the Convention leaves unresolved. This is particularly apt with regard to modification of existing orders when parties have moved from the issuing state or foreign country, or other factual circumstances have changed significantly. Regarding modification of orders, the Convention has only limited application, while UIFSA makes modification the subject of significant statutory effect. See §§ 609-16.

In sum, UIFSA (2008) constitutes a limited, rather than comprehensive, revision of the act. It is designed to integrate the Convention into state law, and not to amend UIFSA (2001) in any significant manner. The drafting principles are relatively simple:

(1) integrate the requirements of the Convention into the current text of UIFSA articles 1 through 6 by adding "or a foreign country" when the desired actions and goals of both acts are congruent;

(2) adapt the language of the Convention to the current text of UIFSA articles 1 through 6 in order to make that language more comprehensible to the American bench and bar;

(3) draft a stand-alone article in UIFSA to direct a "tribunal of this state" on do's and don'ts unique to the Convention support orders containing issues only applicable under the Convention; and,

(4) omit the Convention text that need not be included in state law because it speaks only to "Contracting States," i.e., the United States and the other Convention countries.

The function of the comments to the act is not to serve as an annotated version of UIFSA (2008), but rather to provide the history and process involved in the drafting of the four iterations of a uniform act, one of which is in force in every jurisdiction of the United States. Other than key constitutional cases, most of the citations found in previous comments to earlier iterations of the act have been omitted.

IV. Federal Action Implicating UIFSA (2008)

The usual course for treaties entered into by the United States pursuant to the treaty power, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, and which are not "self-executing," is for the treaty to be implemented through federal legislation. The states are, of course, required to comply with the treaty and the federal legislation, but, as noted above, the establishment, enforcement, and modification of family support orders are basically matters of state law. As UIFSA is the familiar and widely used tool for support determinations in cross-border situations, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), in close consultation with the Department of State and the Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), incorporated applicable provisions of the Hague Maintenance Convention of November 23, 2007 into state law through amendments to UIFSA, now UIFSA (2008). In fact, the United States' negotiations team at The Hague included ULC representatives, and the 2007 treaty, in many important respects, parallels the UIFSA model of inter- jurisdictional cooperation.

While it includes specific new features for international case processing, UIFSA (2008) incorporates substantial provisions of state law which will already be familiar to attorneys, courts, support enforcement agencies, and litigants. Congress, which funds state child support programs through title IV-D of the Social Security Act has, since 1996, deemed it appropriate to require all states to adopt UIFSA as a condition for the continued receipt of federal funds. Adoption of UIFSA (2008) by the states, will ensure uniformity in implementation of the treaty throughout the country and will enable the United States to be in compliance with the Convention.

Obviously, federal action is also required, both to ratify the treaty and bring it into force. With respect to the Convention, federal legislation was necessary to implement parts of the Convention which do not directly implicate state tribunals, such as the provisions of Convention Chs. II and III dealing with Central Authorities, use of the Federal Parent Locator Service, and collection of past- due support in international cases by offset of federal tax refunds.

The United States signed the treaty on November 23, 2007, signifying its intention to make good faith efforts to have the treaty adopted and implemented in this country. On September 29, 2010 the United States Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification of the treaty. Federal legislation which included provisions pertaining to the treaty was passed by both the House and Senate and was signed by the President on September 29, 2014, as Public Law 113-183. This legislation requires all states to adopt UIFSA (2008). The law further requires that UIFSA (2008) be in effect in each state no later "than the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first regular session of the State legislature that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act." If a state has a 2-year legislative session, "each year of the session shall be deemed to be a separate regular session of the State legislature." All states have regular legislative sessions during 2015 and, thus, all states must enact UIFSA (2008) in 2015.

Immediately following enactment of P.L. 113-183, the Commissioner of OCSE signed a policy Action Transmittal directed to all State Agencies Administering Child Support Plans under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. This transmittal reiterates the legislative requirement that each state must have in effect the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, "including any amendments adopted as of September 30, 2008." The transmittal is set forth in full below.

Adoption of UIFSA(2008) by the states is not only essential to the continued federal funding of state child support programs but is key to the United States' showing of good faith implementation of the Convention and the entry into force of the Convention in this country. That implementation will help assure that American support orders are fully and expeditiously accepted and enforced in other countries. At the beginning of 2015, thirty-two countries had already ratified, acceded to the Convention, or were bound by a Regional Economic Integration Organization mandate (i.e. the European Union's means of implementation of the Convention).

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

ACTION TRANSMITTAL

AT-14-11

DATE: October 9, 2014

TO: State Agencies Administering Child Support Plans under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act and Other Interested Individuals

SUBJECT: P.L. 113-183 UIFSA 2008 Enactment

On September 29, 2014 President Obama signed Public Law (P.L.) 113-183, the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act. This law amends section 466(f) of the Social Security Act, requiring all states to enact any amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act "officially adopted as of September 30, 2008 by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws" (referred to as UIFSA 2008). Among other changes, the UIFSA 2008 amendments integrate the appropriate provisions of The Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, which was adopted at the Hague Conference on Private International Law on November 23, 2007, referred to as the 2007 Family Maintenance Convention.

Section 301(f)(3)(A) of P.L. 113-183 requires that UIFSA 2008 must be in effect in every state "no later than the effective date of laws enacted by the legislature of the State implementing such paragraph, but in no event later than the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first regular session of the State legislature that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act." If a state has a 2-year legislative session, "each year of the session shall be deemed to be a separate regular session of the State legislature."

In 2008, after the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws adopted the UIFSA 2008 amendments, several states asked OCSE if their state legislatures could enact UIFSA 2008. At that time, section 466(f) of the Social Security Act required states to adopt UIFSA 1996, a previous version to UIFSA 2008. OCSE issued DCL-08-41, which permitted states to enact UIFSA 2008 verbatim with a provision that the effective date of its enactment be delayed until the 2007 Family Maintenance Convention is ratified and the United States deposits its instrument of ratification. States that chose to follow this process did not need to request an exemption from OCSE. Eight states passed UIFSA 2008 using the effective date language described in DCL-08-41.

Due to the specific requirement in P.L. 113-183 that states enact UIFSA 2008 in their next state legislative session, OCSE rescinds DCL-08-41. The eight states that enacted UIFSA 2008 with a delayed implementation date must take the necessary legislative or administrative steps for UIFSA 2008 to be effective as directed in P.L. 113-183.

Now that the President has signed P.L. 113-183, the following steps must occur before the 2007 Family Maintenance convention can enter into force for the United States.

• All states must enact UIFSA 2008 verbatim by the effective date noted in P.L. 113-183. Where UIFSA 2008 has bracketed language, states may use terminology appropriate under state law. In addition, P.L. 113-183 requires states to make minor revisions to the state plan which OCSE will address in forthcoming guidance.

• The President must sign the instrument of ratification.

• Once these activities are completed, the United States will be able to deposit its instrument of ratification with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is the depositary for the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance.

It is important to note that, once UIFSA 2008 is in effect in your state, international cases will not be processed under Article 7 of UIFSA 2008 until the 2007 Family Maintenance Convention enters into force for the United States. Once this occurs, Article 7 of UIFSA 2008 will be in effect for all cases transmitted and received under the 2007 Family Maintenance Convention.

OCSE expresses our sincere thanks to the entire child support community for the collaborative and monumental effort taken to reach this important milestone. We look forward to working together to enact UIFSA 2008 in all states, and to implement the 2007 Family Maintenance Convention in the United States.

Vicki Turetsky

Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement

PART 1

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Editor's note: (1) This article was repealed and reenacted in 1993, and this part 1 was subsequently amended with relocations in 2003, resulting in the addition, relocation, and elimination of sections as well as subject matter. For amendments to this part 1 prior to 2003, consult the Colorado statutory research explanatory note and the table itemizing the replacement volumes and supplements to the original volume of C.R.S. 1973 beginning on page vii in the front of this volume and the editor's note following the article heading. Former C.R.S. section numbers prior to 2003 are shown in editor's notes following those sections that were relocated.

(2) In 1961, this article was enacted as the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. It was replaced by the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act in 1971, which repealed and reenacted the act and was in effect until 1993 when it was repealed and reenacted into the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act as it existed until 2003 when the article was amended. For the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, see article 2 of chapter 43, C.R.S. 1963 (L. 61, p. 356). For the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, see article 2 of chapter 43, C.R.S. 1963 or article 5 of title 14, C.R.S. 1973 (L. 71, p. 515).