CO Code § 14-13-110 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 13 - Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act|Part 1 - General Provisions|§ 14-13-110. Communication Between Courts

  A court of this state may communicate with a court in another state concerning a proceeding arising under this article.    The court may allow the parties to participate in the communication. If the parties are not able to participate in the communication, they must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made.    Communication between courts on schedules, calendars, court records, and similar matters may occur without informing the parties. A record need not be made of the communication.    Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section, a record must be made of a communication under this section. The parties must be informed promptly of the communication and granted access to the record.    For the purposes of this section, “record” means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.     History. Source: L. 2000: Entire article R&RE, p. 1522, § 1, effective July 1.    OFFICIAL COMMENT   This section emphasizes the role of judicial communications. It authorizes a court to communicate concerning any proceeding arising under this Act. This includes communication with foreign tribunals and tribal courts. Communication can occur in many different ways such as by telephonic conference and by on-line or other electronic communication. The Act does not preclude any method of communication and recognizes that there will be increasing use of modern communication techniques.   Communication between courts is required under Sections 14-13-204 , 14-13-206 , and 14-13-306 and strongly suggested in applying Section 14-13-207 . Apart from those sections, there may be less need under this Act for courts to communicate concerning jurisdiction due to the prioritization of home state jurisdiction. Communication is authorized, however, whenever the court finds it would be helpful. The court may authorize the parties to participate in the communication. However, the Act does not mandate participation. Communication between courts is often difficult to schedule and participation by the parties may be impractical. Phone calls often have to be made after-hours or whenever the schedules of judges allow.   This section does require that a record be made of the conversation and that the parties have access to that record in order to be informed of the content of the conversation. The only exception to this requirement is when the communication involves relatively inconsequential matters such as scheduling, calendars, and court records. Included within this latter type of communication would be matters of cooperation between courts under Section 14-13-112 . A record includes notes or transcripts of a court reporter who listened to a conference call between the courts, an electronic recording of a telephone call, a memorandum or an electronic record of the communication between the courts, or a memorandum or an electronic record made by a court after the communication.   The second sentence of subsection (2) protects the parties against unauthorized ex parte communications. The parties' participation in the communication may amount to a hearing if there is an opportunity to present facts and jurisdictional arguments. However, absent such an opportunity, the participation of the parties should not to be considered a substitute for a hearing and the parties must be given an opportunity to fairly and fully present facts and arguments on the jurisdictional issue before a determination is made. This may be done through a hearing or, if appropriate, by affidavit or memorandum. The court is expected to set forth the basis for its jurisdictional decision, including any court-to-court communication which may have been a factor in the decision.   ANNOTATION   Because this section does not specify which court must make a record, the statute is satisfied if either the Colorado or the non-Colorado court makes a record. People ex rel. D.P., 181 P.3d 403 (Colo. App. 2008).   Trial court erred when judge allowed law clerk to conduct telephone conference with non-Colorado court. However, such error was harmless and does not warrant reversal. People ex rel. D.P., 181 P.3d 403 (Colo. App. 2008).   Prior to assuming jurisdiction to modify an out-of-state custody order, the court must communicate with the state that initially issued the custody order and conduct a hearing at which both sides are allowed to present evidence concerning any disputed residency issue. The burden of proof is on the parent who petitioned the court to assume jurisdiction. In re Brandt, 2012 CO 3, 268 P.3d 406.