reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
CO Code § 14-5-702 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 5 - Uniform Interstate Family Support Act|Part 7 - Support Proceeding Under Convention|§ 14-5-702. Applicability

 This part 7 applies only to a support proceeding under the Convention. In such a proceeding, if a provision of this part 7 is inconsistent with parts 1 through 6 of this article, this part 7 controls.   History. Source: L. 2015: Entire part R&RE,(HB 15-1198), ch. 173, p. 562, § 32, effective July 1.    COMMENT   The first sentence definitively states that this article applies only to a proceeding involving a Convention country, as defined in Section 102(5)(D). This article does not generally apply to a support order from a non-Convention foreign country as defined in Section 102(5)(A) and (B) or to a support order entitled to comity. The second sentence resolves a situation in which there is a conflict between a section in this article and a provision in Articles 1 through 6, in which case this article controls.   Related to Convention: art. 1. Object; art. 2. Scope; art. 4. Designation of Central Authorities.
CO Code § 14-5-703 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 5 - Uniform Interstate Family Support Act|Part 7 - Support Proceeding Under Convention|§ 14-5-703. Relationship of State Department of Human Services to United States Central Authority

 The state department of human services of this state is recognized as the agency designated by the United States central authority to perform specific functions under the Convention.   History. Source: L. 2015: Entire part R&RE,(HB 15-1198), ch. 173, p. 562, § 32, effective July 1.    COMMENT   The Secretary of Health and Human Services has designated the state Title IV-D child support agencies as the governmental entities that will carry out many of the central authority's functions under the Convention. Each state determines which public office or administrative agency will perform the Title IV-D services for child support enforcement. Because the federal government provides a significant subsidy for this effort, the actions of the agency must comply with federal statutes and regulations and the state legislature must enact certain mandatory laws. The relationship is symbiotic in that states choose to participate in the Title IV-D program, and do so by following their own state procedures and legislative enactments that recognize and authorize the state officer or agency to function under these conditions.   Related to Convention: ch. II. Administrative co-operation, arts. 4-8; ch. III. Applications through central authorities, arts. 9-17.
CO Code § 14-5-709 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 5 - Uniform Interstate Family Support Act|Part 7 - Support Proceeding Under Convention|§ 14-5-709. Partial Enforcement

 If a tribunal of this state does not recognize and enforce a Convention support order in its entirety, it shall enforce any severable part of the order. An application or direct request may seek recognition and partial enforcement of a Convention support order.   History. Source: L. 2015: Entire part R&RE,(HB 15-1198), ch. 173, p. 566, § 32, effective July 1.    COMMENT   This section transforms Convention language into UIFSA terminology. If a responding tribunal is unable to enforce the entirety of a Convention support order, it shall enforce a severable part of the order. For example, a mother of a child may have another woman as her registered partner in a Convention country. If a support order provides support for both the mother and child support for the child, that part of the order awarding support to the mother from the registered partner may not be enforceable in some states. Nonetheless, a tribunal is obligated to recognize and enforce that part of the order for support of the child. The second sentence authorizes the mother to request enforcement only of the child support portion, Section 706 (c), .  see also supra  Convention source: art. 21. Severability and partial recognition and enforcement.   Related to Convention: art. 20. Bases for recognition and enforcement.
CO Code § 14-5-711 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 5 - Uniform Interstate Family Support Act|Part 7 - Support Proceeding Under Convention|§ 14-5-711. Modification of Convention Child Support Order

  A tribunal of this state may not modify a Convention child support order if the obligee remains a resident of the foreign country where the support order was issued unless:   The obligee submits to the jurisdiction of a tribunal of this state, either expressly or by defending on the merits of the case without objecting to the jurisdiction at the first available opportunity; or    The foreign tribunal lacks or refuses to exercise jurisdiction to modify its support order or issue a new support order.       If a tribunal of this state does not modify a Convention child support order because the order is not recognized in this state, section 14-5-708 (c) applies.     History. Source: L. 2015: Entire part R&RE,(HB 15-1198), ch. 173, p. 567, § 32, effective July 1.    COMMENT   One goal of the Convention was to limit the number of multiple foreign orders with respect to the same parties to the extent possible. But, given differing laws and jurisdictional bases, consensus on limiting modification was reached only on the fact patterns presented by Section 711(a).   First, this section transforms Convention language into UIFSA terminology. The restriction identified on modification of a child-support order in subsection (a) strikes a familiar note. Similar to Section 611, , a restriction is placed on modification of a support order if the obligee remains in the issuing Convention country. Subsection (a)(1) provides an exception if, by failure to object, the obligee submits to the jurisdiction of another tribunal. Subsection (a)(2) is similar to Section 615, . From the perspective of the obligee, the restriction has virtually the same effect as found in Sections 205 and 611. That is, in effect the issuing foreign tribunal has a form of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction that it maintains over modification of the order so long as the obligee remains a resident of the country. The difference is that the protection against modification is accorded only to the obligee, and not to the obligor. Thus, under the Convention the obligee may be free to seek a modification in another forum notwithstanding the fact that the obligor remains in the issuing country but the obligee moves to another country, with the implicit requirement that the issuing foreign tribunal must have personal jurisdiction over the obligor to sustain the enforcement of modification by a state tribunal.  supra supra  Subsection (b) requires a state tribunal to issue a new child-support order if the Convention order was founded on child-based jurisdiction, the foreign tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the obligor, and there is a request to establish an order in accordance with Section 708.   Convention source: art. 18. Limit on proceedings; art. 21. Severability and partial recognition and enforcement.   Related to Convention: art. 18. Limit on proceedings; art. 20. Bases for recognition and enforcement.
CO Code § 14-5-712 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 5 - Uniform Interstate Family Support Act|Part 7 - Support Proceeding Under Convention|§ 14-5-712. Personal Information - Limit on Use

 Personal information gathered or transmitted under this part 7 may be used only for the purposes for which it was gathered or transmitted.   History. Source: L. 2015: Entire part R&RE,(HB 15-1198), ch. 173, p. 568, § 32, effective July 1.    COMMENT   This section is an almost word-for-word tracking of the Convention provision, rephrased in UIFSA terminology. This single sentence is illustrative of the different drafting rules for a uniform act and an international treaty. Although certainly not always adhered to, cardinal rules for drafting a uniform act include writing in the active voice, identifying the intended actor, and specifying the consequences for failure to follow the directive or ignore the proscription. Convention provisions, such as this one, are generally written in passive voice, the actor is not identified, and no penalty is specified for noncompliance. Insofar as the admirable goals of the provision are concerned, ambiguity in the statute, or an exception to the rule, must be resolved case-by-case.   Confidentiality is highly prized in the United States in many circumstances, e.g., the attorney-client privilege is protected to the maximum extent possible. Under other circumstances, the opposite is true, e.g., records of litigation are generally available, and a judicial decision is ordinarily in open court or public record. Neither goal is absolute. Section 312, , adds another exception, i.e., nondisclosure of information is sometimes required to protect the health, safety, or liberty of a party or a child. In a case in which there is a risk of domestic violence or parental kidnapping, nondisclosure may be crucial.  supra  The anticipated breadth of application of this provision is to constrain individuals and entities subject to a Convention support order. Protection of personal information in this computerized world is increasingly important, whatever the medium or means of communication. Both the sender and recipient of personal information transmitted electronically are expected to take appropriate measures vis- -vis their service providers to meet the requirements of this section. The exact meaning of the statutory phrase “for the purpose for which it was gathered or transmitted” will necessarily remain ambiguous until elaborated by statute, caselaw, or regulation.   Convention source: art. 38. Protection of personal data.
CO Code § 14-5-713 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 5 - Uniform Interstate Family Support Act|Part 7 - Support Proceeding Under Convention|§ 14-5-713. Record in Original Language - English

 A record filed with a tribunal of this state under this part 7 must be in the original language and, if not in English, must be accompanied by an English translation.   History. Source: L. 2015: Entire part R&RE,(HB 15-1198), ch. 173, p. 568, § 32, effective July 1.    COMMENT   The United States will declare that English is the official language for transmittals to this country. Further, the United States will make a reservation objecting to the use of French, the other official language of the Convention, as a default translation. Of course, the original order may be in French. The cost of translation is borne by the issuing state or Convention country.   Convention source: art. 44. Language requirements; art. 62. Reservations; art. 63. Declarations.   Related to Convention: art. 45. Means and costs of translation.
CO Code § 14-5-801 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 5 - Uniform Interstate Family Support Act|Part 8 - Interstate Rendition|§ 14-5-801. Grounds for Rendition

  For purposes of this part 8, “governor” includes an individual performing the functions of governor or the executive authority of a state covered by this article.    The governor of this state may:   Demand that the governor of another state surrender an individual found in the other state who is charged criminally in this state with having failed to provide for the support of an obligee; or    On the demand of the governor of another state, surrender an individual found in this state who is charged criminally in the other state with having failed to provide for the support of an obligee.       A provision for extradition of individuals not inconsistent with this article applies to the demand even if the individual whose surrender is demanded was not in the demanding state when the crime was allegedly committed and has not fled therefrom.     History. Source: L. 93: Entire article R&RE, p. 1601, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2003: (b)(2) amended, p. 1262, § 44, effective July 1, 2004.    COMMENT   This section has not been amended substantively since 1968. Virtually no controversy has been generated regarding this procedure. Arguably application of subsection (c) is problematic in situations in which the obligor neither was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime nor fled from the demanding state. The possibility that an individual may commit a crime in a state without ever being physically present there has elicited considerable discussion and some case law. “L. BRILMAYER, AN INTRODUCTION TO JURISDICTION IN THE AMERICAN FEDERAL SYSTEM,” 329-335 (1986) (discussing minimum contacts theory for criminal jurisdiction); Rotenberg, , 38 TEX. L. REV. 763, 784-87 (1960) (due process requires that the behavior of the defendant must be predictably subject to state's criminal jurisdiction); cf. , 812 S.W.2d 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (Equal Protection Clause limits disparate treatment of nonresident defendants); , 3 Cal.3d 226, 90 Cal. Rptr. 15, 474 P.2d 983 (1970), cert. denied 403 U.S. 931 (enhanced offense for nonresidents impacts constitutional right to travel).  See Extraterritorial Legislative Jurisdiction and the State Criminal Law Ex parte Boetscher In re King
CO Code § 14-5-802 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 5 - Uniform Interstate Family Support Act|Part 8 - Interstate Rendition|§ 14-5-802. Conditions of Rendition

  Before making a demand that the governor of another state surrender an individual charged criminally in this state with having failed to provide for the support of an obligee, the governor of this state may require a prosecutor of this state to demonstrate that at least sixty days previously the obligee had initiated proceedings for support pursuant to this article or that the proceeding would be of no avail.    If, under this article or a law substantially similar to this article, the governor of another state makes a demand that the governor of this state surrender an individual charged criminally in that state with having failed to provide for the support of a child or other individual to whom a duty of support is owed, the governor may require a prosecutor to investigate the demand and report whether a proceeding for support has been initiated or would be effective. If it appears that a proceeding would be effective but has not been initiated, the governor may delay honoring the demand for a reasonable time to permit the initiation of a proceeding.    If a proceeding for support has been initiated and the individual whose rendition is demanded prevails, the governor may decline to honor the demand. If the petitioner prevails and the individual whose rendition is demanded is subject to a support order, the governor may decline to honor the demand if the individual is complying with the support order.     History. Source: L. 93: Entire article R&RE, p. 1601, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2003: (a) and (b) amended, p. 1263, § 45, effective July 1, 2004.    COMMENT   This section has not undergone significant change since 1968. Interstate rendition remains the last resort for support enforcement, in part because a governor may exercise considerable discretion in deciding whether to honor a demand for rendition of an obligor.
CO Code § 14-5-901 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 5 - Uniform Interstate Family Support Act|Part 9 - Miscellaneous Provisions|§ 14-5-901. Uniformity of Application and Construction

 In applying and construing this article, consideration shall be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it.   History. Source: L. 93: Entire article R&RE, p. 1602, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2003: Entire section amended, p. 1263, § 46, effective July 1, 2004.
CO Code § 14-5-902 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 5 - Uniform Interstate Family Support Act|Part 9 - Miscellaneous Provisions|§ 14-5-902. Transitional Provision

 This article, as amended by House Bill 15-1198, enacted in 2015, applies to proceedings begun on or after July 1, 2015, to establish a support order or determine parentage of a child or to register, recognize, enforce, or modify a prior support order, determination, or agreement, whenever issued or entered.   History. Source: L. 93: Entire article R&RE, p. 1602, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2003: (b) added by revision, pp. 1263, 1275, §§ 47, 72. L. 2015: Entire section RC&RE,(HB 15-1198), ch. 173, p. 568, § 33, effective July 1.    Editor's note:   Prior to the recreation and reenactment of this section in 2015, subsection (b) provided for the repeal of this section, effective July 1, 2004. (See L. 2003, pp. 1263, 1275.)
CO Code § 14-5-903 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 5 - Uniform Interstate Family Support Act|Part 9 - Miscellaneous Provisions|§ 14-5-903. Severability Clause

 If any provision of this article or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this article which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this article are severable.   History. Source: L. 93: Entire article R&RE, p. 1602, § 1, effective January 1, 1995.
CO Code § 14-13-101 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 13 - Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act|Part 1 - General Provisions|§ 14-13-101. Short Title

 This article shall be known and may be cited as the “Uniform Child-custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act”.   History. Source: L. 2000: Entire article R&RE, p. 1519, § 1, effective July 1.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 14-13-101 as it existed prior to 2000.   OFFICIAL COMMENT   Section 1 of the UCCJA was a statement of the purposes of the Act. Although extensively cited by courts, it was eliminated because Uniform Acts no longer contain such a section. Nonetheless, this Act should be interpreted according to its purposes which are to:    Avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other States in matters of child custody which have in the past resulted in the shifting of children from State to State with harmful effects on their well-being;    Promote cooperation with the courts of other States to the end that a custody decree is rendered in that State which can best decide the case in the interest of the child;    Discourage the use of the interstate system for continuing controversies over child custody;    Deter abductions of children;    Avoid relitigation of custody decisions of other States in this State;    Facilitate the enforcement of custody decrees of other States.     ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under this section as it existed prior to its 2000 repeal and reenactment.   Because federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 governs decisions made under the Act, it applies to custody determinations made during child dependency and neglect proceedings. People in Interest of K.G., 876 P.2d 1 (Colo. App. 1993).   The UCCJA was enacted to extend the notion of full faith and credit to child custody decrees and its provisions seek to limit the exercise of jurisdiction over custody decrees to one state thereby eliminating forum shopping. In re Custody of K.R., 897 P.2d 896 (Colo. App. 1995).   Applied in In re Bechard, 40 Colo. App. 516, 577 P.2d 778 (1978); County of Clearwater v. Petrash, 198 Colo. 231 , 598 P.2d 138 (1979).
CO Code § 14-13-105 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 13 - Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act|Part 1 - General Provisions|§ 14-13-105. Effect of Child-Custody Determination

 A child-custody determination made by a court of this state that had jurisdiction under this article binds all persons who have been served in accordance with the laws of this state or notified in accordance with section 14-13-108 or who have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, and who have been given an opportunity to be heard. As to those persons, the determination is conclusive as to all decided issues of law and fact except to the extent the determination is modified.   History. Source: L. 2000: Entire article R&RE, p. 1521, § 1, effective July 1.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 14-13-113 as it existed prior to 2000.   OFFICIAL COMMENT   No substantive changes have been made to this section which was Section 12 of the UCCJA.
CO Code § 14-13-106 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 13 - Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act|Part 1 - General Provisions|§ 14-13-106. Priority

 If a question of existence or exercise of jurisdiction under this article is raised in a child-custody proceeding, the question, upon request of a party, must be given priority on the calendar and handled expeditiously.   History. Source: L. 2000: Entire article R&RE, p. 1521, § 1, effective July 1.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 14-13-125 as it existed prior to 2000.   OFFICIAL COMMENT   No substantive change was made to this section which was Section 24 of the UCCJA. The section is placed toward the beginning of part 1 to emphasize its importance.   The language change from “case” to “question” is intended to clarify that it is the jurisdictional issue which must be expedited and not the entire custody case. Whether the entire custody case should be given priority is a matter of local law.
CO Code § 14-13-111 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 13 - Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act|Part 1 - General Provisions|§ 14-13-111. Taking Testimony in Another State

  In addition to other procedures available to a party, a party to a child-custody proceeding or other legal representative of the child may offer testimony of witnesses who are located in another state, including testimony of the parties and the child, by deposition or other means allowable in this state for testimony taken in another state. The court on its own motion may order that the testimony of a person be taken in another state and may prescribe the manner in which and the terms upon which the testimony is taken.    A court of this state may permit an individual residing in another state to be deposed or to testify by telephone, audiovisual means, or other electronic means before a designated court or at another location in that state. A court of this state shall cooperate with courts of other states in designating an appropriate location for the deposition or testimony.    Documentary evidence transmitted from another state to a court of this state by technological means that do not produce an original writing may not be excluded from evidence on an objection based on the means of transmission.     History. Source: L. 2000: Entire article R&RE, p. 1523, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2005: (1) amended, p. 962, § 7, effective July 1.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 14-13-119 as it existed prior to 2000.   Cross references:    For manner of giving notice through service by mail or publication, see C.R.C.P. 4(g); for manner of giving notice through personal service outside state, see C.R.C.P. 4(e).    For the legislative declarations contained in the 2005 act amending subsection (1), see sections 1 and 3 of chapter 244, Session Laws of Colorado 2005.     OFFICIAL COMMENT   No substantive changes have been made to subsection (1) which was Section 18 of the UCCJA.   Subsections (2) and (3) merely provide that modern modes of communication are permissible in the taking of testimony and the transmittal of documents. See UIFSA § 316.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “The Rights of Children and the Crisis in Custody Litigation: Modification of Custody in and out of State”, see 46 U. Colo. L. Rev. 495 (1974-75).