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

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

If a child support order issued by a tribunal of this state is modified by a tribunal of another state which assumed jurisdiction pursuant to the "Uniform Interstate Family Support Act", a tribunal of this state:

(1) May enforce its order that was modified only as to arrears and interest accruing before the modification;

(2) May provide appropriate relief for violations of its order which occurred before the effective date of the modification; and

(3) Shall recognize the modifying order of the other state, upon registration, for the purpose of enforcement.

(4) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2003, p. 1261, § 41, effective July 1, 2004.)

Source: L. 93: Entire article R&RE, p. 1600, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2003: Entire section amended, p. 1261, § 41, effective July 1, 2004. L. 2015: Entire part amended, (HB 15-1198), ch. 173, p. 560, § 31, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 14-5-110 as it existed prior to 1993.

COMMENT

A key aspect of UIFSA is the deference to the controlling child-support order of a sister state demanded from a tribunal of the forum state. This applies not just to the original order, but also to a modified child-support order issued by a second state under the standards established by Sections 611and 613. For the act to function properly, the original issuing tribunal must recognize and accept the modified order as controlling, and must regard its prior order as prospectively inoperative. Because the UIFSA system is based on an interlocking series of state laws, it is fundamental that a modifying tribunal of one state lacks the authority to direct the original issuing tribunal to release its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. That result is accomplished through the enactment of UIFSA by all states, which empowers a modifying tribunal to assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction from the original issuing tribunal and requires an issuing tribunal to recognize such an assumption of jurisdiction. This explains why the U.S. Congress took the extraordinary measure in PRWORA of mandating universal passage of UIFSA (1996), as amended. See Prefatory Note.

The original issuing tribunal retains authority post-modification to take remedial enforcement action directly connected to its now-modified order.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. Since § 14-5-612 is similar to § 14-5-110 as it existed prior to the 1993 repeal and reenactment of this article, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.

Full faith and credit must be given to another state's final order for arrearages entered under RURESA, § 14-5-101 et seq. In re Sabala, 802 P.2d 1163 (Colo. App. 1990).

The doctrine of equitable estoppel may properly be applied to afford relief from accrued arrearages in child support if the party asserting the claim demonstrates reasonable reliance, to the party's detriment, upon the acts or representations of the other person, and lack of knowledge or convenient means of knowing the facts. In re Dennin and Lohf, 811 P.2d 449 (Colo. App. 1991).