CO Code § 14-5-502 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 5 - Uniform Interstate Family Support Act|Part 5 - Enforcement of Order of Another State Without Registration|§ 14-5-502. Employer's Compliance With Income-Withholding Order of Another State

  Upon receipt of an income-withholding order, the obligor's employer shall immediately provide a copy of the order to the obligor.    The employer shall treat an income-withholding order issued in another state which appears regular on its face as if it had been issued by a tribunal of this state.    Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d) of this section and section 14-5-503 the employer shall withhold and distribute the funds as directed in the withholding order by complying with terms of the order which specify:   The duration and amount of periodic payments of current child support, stated as a sum certain;    The person designated to receive payments and the address to which the payments are to be forwarded;    Medical support, whether in the form of periodic cash payment, stated as a sum certain, or ordering the obligor to provide health insurance coverage for the child under a policy available through the obligor's employment;    The amount of periodic payments of fees and costs for a support enforcement agency, the issuing tribunal, and the obligee's attorney, stated as sums certain; and    The amount of periodic payments of arrearages and interest on arrearages, stated as sums certain.       An employer shall comply with the law of the state of the obligor's principal place of employment for withholding from income with respect to:   The employer's fee for processing an income-withholding order;    The maximum amount permitted to be withheld from the obligor's income; and    The times within which the employer must implement the withholding order and forward the child support payment.        History. Source: L. 97: Entire part amended with relocations, p. 539, § 11, effective July 1; (b) amended, p. 1264, § 6, effective July 1. L. 98: (b) amended, p. 753, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2000: (b) amended, p. 1709, § 5, effective July 1. L. 2003: (c)(2) amended, p. 1256, § 28, effective July 1, 2004.    Editor's note:   This section was formerly numbered as § 14-5-501 (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3), and the former § 14-5-502 was relocated to § 14-5-507 .   Cross references:   For the legislative declaration contained in the 1997 act amending subsection (b), see section 1 of chapter 236, Session Laws of Colorado 1997.   COMMENT   In 1996 major employers and national payroll associations urged NCCUSL to supply more detail regarding the rights and duties of an employer on receipt of an income-withholding order from another state. The Conference obliged with amendments to UIFSA establishing a series of steps for employers to follow.   When an employer receives an income withholding order from another state, the first step is to notify the employee that an income withholding order has been received naming the employee as the obligor of child support, and that income withholding will begin within the time frame specified by local law. In other words, the employer will initially proceed just as if the withholding order had been received from a tribunal of the employer's state. It is the responsibility of the employee to take whatever protective measures are necessary to prevent the withholding if the employee asserts a defense as provided in Section 506, .  infra  At this point neither an initiating nor a responding tribunal is directly involved. The withholding order may have been forwarded by the obligee, the obligee's attorney, or the out-of-state IV-D agency. In fact, there is no prohibition against anyone sending a valid copy of an income-withholding order, even a stranger to the litigation, such as the child's grandparent. Subsection (a) does not specify the method for sending this relatively informal notice for direct income withholding, but rather makes the assumption that the employer's communication to the employee regarding receipt of the order will cause an employee-obligor to act to prevent a wrongful invasion of his or her income if it is not owed as current child support or arrears.   Subsection (b) directs an employer of the enacting state to recognize a withholding order of a sister state, subject to the employee's right to contest the validity of the order or its enforcement. Prior to the promulgation of UIFSA, agencies in several states adopted a procedure of sending direct withholding requests to out-of-state employers. A contemporaneous study by the federal General Accounting Office reported that employers in a second state routinely recognized withholding orders of sister states despite an apparent lack of statutory authority to do so. UIFSA marked the first official sanction of this practice. Subsection (b) does not define “regular on its face,” but the term should be liberally construed, , 467 U.S. 822 (1984) (“legal process regular on its face”). The rules governing intrastate procedure and defenses for withholding orders will apply to interstate orders.  see U.S. v. Morton  Subsection (c) answered employers' complaints that insufficient direction for action was given by the original UIFSA. Prior to the 1996 amendments an employer was merely told to “distribute the funds as directed in the withholding order.” This section clarifies the terms of the out-of-state order with which the employer must strictly comply. As a general principle, an employer is directed to comply with the specific terms contained in the order, but there are exceptions. Moreover, many income-withholding orders received at that time did not provide the detail necessary for the employer to comply with every directive. Since then, however, the long-anticipated federal forms were promulgated throughout 1997 and 1998, with periodic updates to the present time. Most recently, the text of income withholding orders for child support is fast conforming to a nationwide norm. To the extent that an order is silent, the employer is not required to respond to unstated demands of the issuing tribunal. Formerly, employers often were so concerned about ambiguous or incomplete orders that they telephoned child support enforcement agencies in other states to attempt to understand and comply with unstated terms. Employers should not be expected to become investigators or shoulder the responsibility of learning the law of 50 states.   Subsection (c)(1) directs that the amount and duration of periodic payments of current child support must be stated in a sum certain in order to elicit compliance. The amount of current support and duration of the support obligation are fixed by the controlling order and should be stated in the withholding order so that the employer is informed of the date on which the withholding is anticipated to terminate. The “sum certain” requirement is crucial to facilitating the employer's compliance. For example, an order for a “percentage of the obligor's net income,” does not satisfy this requirement and is not entitled to compliance from an employer receiving an interstate income-withholding order.   Subsection (c)(2) states the obvious: information necessary for compliance must be clearly stated. For example, the destination of the payments must correspond to the destination originally designated or subsequently authorized by the issuing tribunal, such as by the redirection of payments pursuant to Section 319, .  supra  Subsection (c)(3) provides that medical support for the child must be stated either by a periodic cash payment or, alternatively, by an order directing the employee-obligor to provide health insurance coverage from his employment. In the absence of an order for payment of a sum certain, issuance of an order for medical support as child support is required to ensure the employer enrolls the obligor's child for coverage if medical insurance is available through the obligor's employment. Failure to enroll the child should elicit, at the least, registration of an order for enforcement in the responding state, to be implemented by an order of a tribunal directing either the employee or the employer to comply to furnish insurance coverage for the child. If the employer is so directed by a medical support order, enrollment of the child in the health care plan at the employee-obligor's expense is not dependent on the obligor's consent, any more than withholding a sum certain from the obligor's income is subject to a veto. It is up to the employee-obligor to assert any defense to prevent the employer from abiding by the medical support order.   Subsection (c)(4) identifies certain costs and fees incurred in conjunction with the support enforcement that may be added to the withholding order.   Subsection (c)(5) requires that the amount of periodic payments for arrears and interest on arrears also must be stated as a sum certain. If the one-order system is to function properly, the issuing tribunal ultimately must be responsible to account for payments and maintain the record of arrears and interest rate on arrears. Full compliance with the support order will only be achieved when the issuing tribunal determines that the obligation no longer exists. The amount of periodic payments for arrears is also fixed by the controlling order unless the law of the issuing state or the state where the order is being enforced provides a procedure for redetermination of the amount.   Subsection (d) identifies those narrow provisions in which the law of the employee's work state applies, rather than the law of the issuing state. A large employer will almost certainly have a number of employees subject to income-withholding orders. From the employer's perspective, the procedural requirements for compliance should be uniform for all of those employees. Certain issues should be matters for the law of the employee's work state, such as the employer's fee for processing, the maximum amount to be withheld, and the time in which to comply. The latter necessarily includes the frequency with which income withholding must occur. This is also consistent with regard to the tax consideration imposed by choice of law considerations. The only element in the list of local laws identified in subsection (d) which stirred any controversy whatsoever was the fact that the maximum amount permitted to be withheld is to be subject to the law of the employee's work state. Demands of equal treatment for all obligees, plus the practical concern that large employers require uniform computer programming mandate this solution.