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

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

(a) A nonregistering party seeking to contest the validity or enforcement of a registered support order in this state shall request a hearing within the time required by section 14-5-605. The nonregistering party may seek to vacate the registration, to assert any defense to an allegation of noncompliance with the registered order, or to contest the remedies being sought or the amount of any alleged arrearages pursuant to section 14-5-607.

(b) If the nonregistering party fails to contest the validity or enforcement of the registered support order in a timely manner, the order is confirmed by operation of law.

(c) If a nonregistering party requests a hearing to contest the validity or enforcement of the registered support order, the registering tribunal shall schedule the matter for hearing and give notice to the parties of the date, time, and place of the hearing.

Source: L. 93: Entire article R&RE, p. 1598, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 97: (a) and (c) amended, p. 541, § 13, effective July 1. L. 2003: (a) amended, p. 1260, § 36, effective July 1, 2004. L. 2015: Entire part amended, (HB 15-1198), ch. 173, p. 557, § 31, effective July 1.

COMMENT

Subsection (a) directs the "nonregistering party" to contest the registration of an interstate support order or a foreign support order not subject to the Convention within a short period of time or forfeit the opportunity to contest. As noted in Section 605, that time frame is extended for cases subject to the Convention.

Notice of registration is the first step for enforcement or modification of another state's child-support order. Once the nonregistering party is put on notice of the registration, if an error allegedly has been made, the second step is crucial. The nonregistering party is required to assert any existing defense to the alleged controlling order, or forfeit the opportunity to contest the allegations. Note that either the obligor or the obligee may have objections to the registered order, although in the vast majority of cases the obligor is the nonregistering party.

On the other hand, there is a possibility that in multiple-order situations either party may register the order most favorable to that party rather than register the likely controlling order, thus triggering a contest. Deliberately furnishing misinformation regarding the controlling order doubtless constitutes chicanery, which is contrary to Section 605(c). When a support enforcement agency requests registration, Section 307(c) requires reasonable efforts to ensure registration of the proper controlling order. Nonetheless, there may be an honest difference of opinion as to which order controls. The nonregistering obligor has a significant stake in assuring that both the order and the arrears are correctly stated.

Under UIFSA a contest of the fundamental provisions of the registered order is not permitted in the responding state. The nonregistering party must return to the issuing state or foreign country to prosecute such a contest (only as the law of that state or foreign country permits). This approach is akin to the prohibition found in Section 315 against asserting a nonparentage defense in a UIFSA proceeding. There is no attempt by UIFSA to preclude a collateral attack on the support order from being litigated in the appropriate forum.

Subsection (b) precludes an untimely contest of a registered support order.

Subsection (c) directs that a hearing be scheduled when the nonregistering party contests some aspect of the registration.

Related to Convention: art. 20. Bases for recognition and enforcement; art. 22. Grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement; art. 23. Procedure on an application for recognition and enforcement; art. 26. Procedure on an application for recognition.