CO Code § 14-13-204 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 13 - Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act|Part 2 - Jurisdiction|§ 14-13-204. Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction

  A court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse. A court of this state may exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction during the pendency of an appeal of a child-custody determination.    If there is no previous child-custody determination that is entitled to be enforced under this article and a child-custody proceeding has not been commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial conformity with sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203, a child-custody determination made under this section remains in effect until an order is obtained from a court of a state having jurisdiction under a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial conformity with sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203. If a child-custody proceeding has not been or is not commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial conformity with sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203, a child-custody determination made under this section becomes a final determination, if it so provides and this state becomes the home state of the child.    If there is a previous child-custody determination that is entitled to be enforced under this article, or a child-custody proceeding has been commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial conformity with sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203, any order issued by a court of this state under this section must specify in the order a period that the court considers adequate to allow the person seeking an order to obtain an order from the state having jurisdiction under a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial conformity with sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203. The order issued in this state remains in effect until an order is obtained from the other state within the period specified or the period expires.    A court of this state that has been asked to make a child-custody determination under this section, upon being informed that a child-custody proceeding has been commenced in, or a child-custody determination has been made by, a court of a state having jurisdiction under a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial conformity with sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203, shall immediately communicate with the other court. A court of this state that is exercising jurisdiction pursuant to sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203, upon being informed that a child-custody proceeding has been commenced in, or a child-custody determination has been made by, a court of another state under a statute similar to this section shall immediately communicate with the court of that state to resolve the emergency, protect the safety of the parties and the child, and determine a period for the duration of the temporary order.     History. Source: L. 2000: Entire article R&RE, p. 1525, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2021: (1) amended,(HB 21-1031), ch. 116, p. 450, § 5, effective May 7.    Editor's note:    This section is similar to former § 14-13-104 as it existed prior to 2000.    Section 8 of chapter 116 (HB 21-1031), Session Laws of Colorado 2021, provides that the act changing this section applies to any request to modify an order appealed on, after, or before May 7, 2021.     Cross references:   For the legislative declaration in HB 21-1031, see section 1 of chapter 116, Session Laws of Colorado 2021.   OFFICIAL COMMENT   The provisions of this section are an elaboration of what was formerly Section 3(a)(3) of the UCCJA. It remains, as Professor Bodenheimer's comments to that section noted, “an extraordinary jurisdiction reserved for extraordinary circumstances.”   This section codifies and clarifies several aspects of what has become common practice in emergency jurisdiction cases under the UCCJA and PKPA. First, a court may take jurisdiction to protect the child even though it can claim neither home State nor significant connection jurisdiction. Second, the duties of States to recognize, enforce and not modify a custody determination of another State do not take precedence over the need to enter a temporary emergency order to protect the child.   Third, a custody determination made under the emergency jurisdiction provisions of this section is a temporary order. The purpose of the order is to protect the child until the State that has jurisdiction under Sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203 enters an order.   Under certain circumstances, however, subsection (2) provides that an emergency custody determination may become a final custody determination. If there is no existing custody determination, and no custody proceeding is filed in a State with jurisdiction under Sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203 , an emergency custody determination made under this section becomes a final determination, if it so provides, when the State that issues the order becomes the home State of the child.   Subsection (3) is concerned with the temporary nature of the order when there exists a prior custody order that is entitled to be enforced under this Act or when a subsequent custody proceeding is filed in a State with jurisdiction under Sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203 . Subsection (3) allows the temporary order to remain in effect only so long as is necessary for the person who obtained the determination under this section to present a case and obtain an order from the State with jurisdiction under Sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203 . That time period must be specified in the order. If there is an existing order by a State with jurisdiction under Sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203, that order need not be reconfirmed. The temporary emergency determination would lapse by its own terms at the end of the specified period or when an order is obtained from the court with jurisdiction under Sections 14-13-202 to 14-13-203. The court with appropriate jurisdiction also may decide, under the provisions of 207, that the court that entered the emergency order is in a better position to address the safety of the person who obtained the emergency order, or the child, and decline jurisdiction under Section 14-13-207 .   Any hearing in the State with jurisdiction under Sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203 on the temporary emergency determination is subject to the provisions of Sections 14-13-111 and 14-13-112 . These sections facilitate the presentation of testimony and evidence taken out of State. If there is a concern that the person obtaining the temporary emergency determination under this section would be in danger upon returning to the State with jurisdiction under Sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203 , these provisions should be used.   Subsection (4) requires communication between the court of the State that is exercising jurisdiction under this section and the court of another State that is exercising jurisdiction under Sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203 . The pleading rules of Section 14-13-209 apply fully to determinations made under this section. Therefore, a person seeking a temporary emergency custody determination is required to inform the court pursuant to Section (4) of any proceeding concerning the child that has been commenced elsewhere. The person commencing the custody proceeding under Sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203 is required under Section 14-13-209 (1) to inform the court about the temporary emergency proceeding. These pleading requirements are to be strictly followed so that the courts are able to resolve the emergency, protect the safety of the parties and the child, and determine a period for the duration of the temporary order.   Relationship to the PKPA. The definition of emergency has been modified to harmonize it with the PKPA. The PKPA's definition of emergency jurisdiction does not use the term “neglect.” It defines an emergency as “mistreatment or abuse.” Therefore “neglect” has been eliminated as a basis for the assumption of temporary emergency jurisdiction. Neglect is so elastic a concept that it could justify taking emergency jurisdiction in a wide variety of cases. Under the PKPA, if a State exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction based on a finding that the child was neglected without a finding of mistreatment or abuse, the order would not be entitled to federal enforcement in other States.   Relationship to Protective Order Proceedings. The UCCJA and the PKPA were enacted long before the advent of state procedures on the use of protective orders to alleviate problems of domestic violence. Issues of custody and visitation often arise within the context of protective order proceedings since the protective order is often invoked to keep one parent away from the other parent and the children when there is a threat of violence. This Act recognizes that a protective order proceeding will often be the procedural vehicle for invoking jurisdiction by authorizing a court to assume temporary emergency jurisdiction when the child's parent or sibling has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse.   In order for a protective order that contains a custody determination to be enforceable in another State it must comply with the provisions of this Act and the PKPA. Although the Violence Against Women's Act (VAWA), 18 U.S.C. § 2265, does provide an independent basis for the granting of full faith and credit to protective orders, it expressly excludes “custody” orders from the definition of “protective order,” 22 U.S.C. § 2266.   Many States authorize the issuance of protective orders in an emergency without notice and hearing. This Act does not address the propriety of that procedure. It is left to local law to determine the circumstances under which such an order could be issued, and the type of notice that is required, in a case without an interstate element. However, an order issued after the assumption of temporary emergency jurisdiction is entitled to interstate enforcement and nonmodification under this Act and the PKPA only if there has been notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard as set out in Section 14-13-205 . Although VAWA does require that full faith and credit be accorded to ex parte protective orders if notice will be given and there will be a reasonable opportunity to be heard, it does not include a “custody” order within the definition of “protective order.”   VAWA does play an important role in determining whether an emergency exists. That Act requires a court to give full faith and credit to a protective order issued in another State if the order is made in accordance with the VAWA. This would include those findings of fact contained in the order. When a court is deciding whether an emergency exists under this section, it may not relitigate the existence of those factual findings.   ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. Section 14-13-204 is similar to §   (c)    as it existed prior to the 2000 repeal and reenactment of this article. Relevant cases construing § 14-13-104 have been included in the annotations under § 14-13-201 .  Despite the fact that Texas court had made child-custody determination, temporary emergency jurisdiction was proper when child's father was jailed during a child's visit with mother in Colorado; except that only temporary emergency jurisdiction for a specified period to allow father to seek an order from Texas court was proper, and magistrate's order terminating the parental rights of both parents exceeded Colorado's temporary emergency jurisdiction. People ex rel. M.C., 94 P.3d 1220 (Colo. App. 2004).   An order under this section is temporary only and lapses as soon as the state which otherwise has jurisdiction under the UCCJEA enters an order. In re T.L.B., 2012 COA 8 , 272 P.3d 1148.   Temporary emergency jurisdiction is limited in time and scope and did not extend to orders terminating parental rights. Due to prior custody order in Iran, juvenile court was without jurisdiction to enter permanent custody orders terminating mother's and father's parental rights. People in Interest of A.B-A., 2019 COA 125 , 451 P.3d 1278.   The absence of diplomatic relations with Iran does not excuse the court's failure to confer with foreign court. Juvenile court must immediately communicate with Iranian court. The statute does not create an exception to the communication provision for a foreign country that has no diplomatic relations with the United States. The department's assertion that it had no means of contacting the Iranian court in the absence of diplomatic relations is speculation, as the juvenile court made no attempt to contact the Iranian court. People in Interest of A.B-A., 2019 COA 125 , 451 P.3d 1278.   Temporary emergency jurisdiction did not provide court with jurisdiction to enter permanent order terminating parental rights without the court first obtaining home state jurisdiction pursuant to § 14-13-201 . A temporary emergency order pursuant to this section does not automatically become a permanent order. The record does not disclose a basis on which the court could infer home state jurisdiction. Both “significant connection” and “more appropriate forum” jurisdiction requires the home state to affirmatively decline jurisdiction before another state can invoke it. Declining jurisdiction under the UCCJEA means more than just the absence of litigation in the home state. The home state must have had an opportunity to weigh in and been made aware of a possible reason to do so. People in Interest of S.A.G., 2020 COA 45 , __ P.3d __.