CO Code § 14-5-201 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 14 - Domestic Matters|Article 5 - Uniform Interstate Family Support Act|Part 2 - Jurisdiction|§ 14-5-201. Bases for Jurisdiction Over Nonresident

  In a proceeding to establish or enforce a support order or to determine parentage of a child, a tribunal of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident individual or the individual's guardian or conservator if:   The individual is personally served with a summons within this state;    The individual submits to the jurisdiction of this state by consent in a record, by entering a general appearance, or by filing a responsive document having the effect of waiving any contest to personal jurisdiction;    The individual resided with the child in this state;    The individual resided in this state and provided prenatal expenses or support for the child;    The child resides in this state as a result of the acts or directives of the individual;    The individual engaged in sexual intercourse in this state and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse; or    There is any other basis consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.       The bases of personal jurisdiction set forth in subsection (a) of this section or in any other law of this state may not be used to acquire personal jurisdiction for a tribunal of this state to modify a child support order of another state unless the requirements of section 14-5-611 are met, or in the case of a foreign support order, unless the requirements of section 14-5-615 are met.     History. Source: L. 93: Entire article R&RE, p. 1584, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2003: Entire section amended, p. 1244, § 3, effective July 1, 2004. L. 2015: Entire section amended,(HB 15-1198), ch. 173, p. 547, § 5, effective July 1.    COMMENT   General Jurisdictional Principle:Sections 201 and 202 contain what is commonly described as long-arm jurisdiction over a nonresident respondent for purposes of establishing a support order or determining parentage. Read together, subsections (a) and (b) provide the basic jurisdictional rules established by the act for interstate application of a support order, and are designed to be as broad as is constitutionally permissible. To sustain enforceability of a family support order in the United States the tribunal must be able to assert personal jurisdiction over the parties. , 334 U.S. 541, 68 S. Ct. 1213, 92 L. Ed. 1561 (1948), and , 354 U.S. 416, 77 S. Ct. 1360, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1456 (1957) (spousal support); , 436 U.S. 84, 98 S. Ct. 1690, 56 L. Ed. 2d 132 (1978) (child support).  See Estin v. Estin Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt Kulko v. Superior Court  Long-arm Provisions:Inclusion of this long-arm provision in this interstate act is justified because residents of two separate states are involved in the litigation, both of whom must be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the forum. Thus, the case has a clear interstate aspect, despite the fact that the substantive and procedural law of the forum state is applicable to a lawsuit in what is a one-state case. This rationale is sufficient to invoke additional UIFSA provisions in an otherwise intrastate proceeding. Sections 202, 316, and 318, as pertaining to special rules of evidence and discovery for UIFSA cases. The intent is to ensure that every enacting state has a long-arm statute that is as broad as constitutionally permitted.  See  In situations in which the long-arm statute can be satisfied, the petitioner (either the obligor or the obligee) has two options: (1) utilize the long-arm statute to obtain personal jurisdiction over the respondent, or, (2) initiate a two-state proceeding under the succeeding provisions of UIFSA seeking to establish a support order in the respondent's state of residence. Of course, a third option is also available that does not implicate UIFSA; a petitioner may initiate a proceeding in the respondent's state of residence by filing a proceeding to settle all issues between the parties in a single proceeding.   Under RURESA, multiple support orders affecting the same parties were commonplace. UIFSA created a structure designed to provide for only one support order at a time. The new one-order regime is facilitated and combined with a broad assertion of personal jurisdiction under this long- arm provision. The frequency of a two-state procedure involving the participation of tribunals in both states has been substantially reduced by the introduction of this long-arm statute.   Subsection by subsection analyses: Subsections (1) through (8) are derived from a variety of sources, including the Uniform Parentage Act (1973) § 8, Texas Family Code § 102.011, and New York Family Court Act § 154.   Subsection (1) codifies the holding of , 495 U.S. 604 (1990), which reaffirms the constitutional validity of asserting personal jurisdiction based on personal service within a state.  Burnham v. Superior Court  Subsection (2) expresses the principle that a nonresident party concedes personal jurisdiction by seeking affirmative relief or by submitting to the jurisdiction by answering or entering an appearance. However, the power to assert jurisdiction over an issue involving child support under the act does not necessarily extend the tribunal's jurisdiction to other matters. As noted above, family law is rife with instances of bifurcated jurisdiction. For example, a tribunal may have jurisdiction to establish a child-support order based on personal jurisdiction over the obligor under Section 201, but lack jurisdiction over child custody, which is a matter of status adjudication usually based on the home state of the child.   Subsections (3) through (6) identify specific fact situations justifying the assertion of long-arm jurisdiction over a nonresident. Each provides an appropriate affiliating nexus for such an assertion, when judged on a case-by-case basis with an eye on procedural and substantive due process. Further, each subsection does contain a possibility that an overly literal construction of the terms of the statute will overreach due process. For example, subsection (3) provides that long-arm jurisdiction to establish a support order may be asserted if “the individual resided with the child in this state.” The typical scenario contemplated by the statute is that the parties lived as a family unit in the forum state, separated, and one of the parents subsequently moved to another state while the other parent and the child continued to reside in the forum. No time frame is stated for filing a proceeding; this is based on the fact that the absent parent has a support obligation that extends for at least the minority of the child (and longer in some states).   On the other hand, suppose that the two parents and their child lived in State A for many years and then decided to move the family to State B to seek better employment opportunities. Those opportunities did not materialize and, after several weeks or a few months of frustration with the situation, one of the parents returned with the child to State A. Under these facts, a tribunal of State A may conclude it has long-arm jurisdiction to establish the support obligation of the absent parent. But, suppose that the family's sojourn in State B lasted for many years, and then one parent unilaterally decides to return to State A. It is reasonable to expect that a tribunal will conclude that assertion of personal jurisdiction over the absent parent immediately after the return based on subsection (3) would offend due process. Note the provisions of UIFSA are available to the returning parent to establish child support in State B, and that state will have long-arm jurisdiction to establish support binding on the moving parent under Section 201. also Section 204 for the resolution of simultaneous proceedings provided by the act.  See  The factual situations catalogued in the first seven subsections are appropriate and constitutionally acceptable grounds upon which to exercise personal jurisdiction over an individual. Subsection (7) is bracketed because not all states maintain putative father registries.   Finally, subsection (8) tracks the broad, catch-all provisions found in many state statutes, including Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10 (1973), and Tex. Family Code § 102.011. Note, however, that the California provision, standing alone, was found to be inadequate to sustain a child-support order under the facts presented in , 436 U.S. 84 (1978).  Kulko v. Superior Court  Limit on Asserting Long-arm Jurisdiction to Modify Child-Support Order: Subsection (b) elaborates on the principle by providing that modification of an existing child-support order goes beyond the usual rules of personal jurisdiction over the parties. Amended in UIFSA (2001), subsection (b) makes clear long-arm personal jurisdiction over a respondent, standing alone, is not sufficient to grant subject matter jurisdiction to a responding tribunal of the state of residence of the petitioner for that tribunal to modify an existing child-support order. the extended commentaries to Sections 609 through 616. The limitations on modification of a child-support order provided by Section 611 must be observed irrespective of the existence of personal jurisdiction over the parties.  See  For tribunals of the United States, these sections integrate the concepts of personal jurisdiction and its progeny, continuing jurisdiction, and controlling orders. Note that the long-arm provisions of UIFSA (1992) were originally written with only domestic cases in mind. If the tribunal of a state has personal jurisdiction over an individual residing in another state (or, by implication, a foreign country), the application of local law is entitled to recognition and enforcement. Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act, a.k.a. FFCCSOA, 28 U.S.C. § 1738B. Integrating this federal law based on the Constitution with the statutory rule of subject matter jurisdiction for modification of an existing child-support order is a major accomplishment of UIFSA. Obviously, the federal act is applicable to a child-support order issued by a state tribunal, but is not applicable to a foreign support order. Nor does FFCCSOA in any way affect a foreign country, which will apply its local law of recognition, enforcement, and modification to a child-support order originating from a state of the United States. When the Convention enters into force, the integration of UIFSA and the law of some foreign countries will be international in scope. At that time the jurisdictional rules of all concerned become significantly more complex. Section 708. Nonetheless, it seems likely the complexity will be more theoretical than actually troublesome.  See See  Applicability of Long-Arm Jurisdiction to Spousal Support: Although this long-arm statute applies to a spousal-support order, almost all of the specific provisions of this section relate to a child-support order or a determination of parentage. This derives from the fact that the focus of UIFSA is primarily on child support. Only subsections (1), (2), and (8) are applicable to an action for spousal support asserting long-arm jurisdiction over a nonresident. The first two subsections are wholly noncontroversial insofar as an assertion of personal jurisdiction is concerned. Moreover, as a practical matter, an assertion of personal jurisdiction under UIFSA will almost always also yield jurisdiction over all matters to be decided between the spouses, including division of property on divorce. Thus, the most obvious possible basis for asserting long-arm jurisdiction over spousal support, i.e., “last matrimonial domicile,” is not included in Section 201 to avoid the potential problem of another instance of bifurcated jurisdiction. This restraint avoids a situation in which UIFSA would arguably grant long-arm jurisdiction for a spousal-support order when the forum state has no correlative statute for property division in divorce.   Potential Application of Long-arm Jurisdiction to Foreign Support Order: If the facts of a case warrant, whether in an interstate or an international context, a state tribunal shall apply long-arm jurisdiction to establish a support order without regard to the physical location or residence of a party outside the United States. Interestingly, under certain fact situations involving a request to recognize and enforce or modify a foreign support order, a state tribunal may be called upon to determine the applicability of long-arm jurisdiction under UIFSA to the facts of the case in order to decide the enforceability of the foreign support order.   For example, a challenge to a request for enforcement of a foreign support order may be made by a respondent based on an allegation that the foreign issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the respondent. A respondent may acknowledge that the obligee or the child resides in France, and that a French tribunal issued a support order. But, in the decision the Court accepted the respondent's allegation that under the state law then available there was no nexus between himself and California and therefore no personal jurisdiction over him as required by the opinion. From the perspective of the French tribunal under the facts above, an asserted lack of personal jurisdiction is of no consequence. Under the law of France, like the law of virtually all other foreign nations, the child-based jurisdiction stemming from the residence of the obligee or child is sufficient to sustain a child-support order against the noncustodial parent. But, meshing the world-wide system of child-based jurisdiction with the U.S. requirement of jurisdiction presented an easily resolved challenge to the drafters of the new Hague Maintenance Convention.  Kulko in personam  Thus, under the Convention, a state tribunal may be called upon to determine whether the facts underlying the support order would have provided the issuing foreign tribunal with personal jurisdiction over the respondent under the standards of this section. In effect, the question is whether the foreign tribunal would have been able to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with Section 201. The foregoing fact situation illustrates that it is for the state tribunal to determine if the order of the French tribunal would have complied with UIFSA Section 201 on the facts of the case. If so, the foreign support order is entitled to recognition and enforcement. For example, the facts of the case may show that the father lived with the child in France, supported the mother or child in France, or perhaps was responsible for, or agreed to the movement of the child to France.   On the other hand, if the issuing French tribunal would have lacked personal jurisdiction over the respondent if Section 201 had been applicable, the support order cannot be enforced because there was no nexus between France and the respondent. The United States will make a reservation to Convention article 20, declining to recognize or enforce a foreign support order on child-based jurisdiction founded solely on the location or residence of the obligee or the child in the foreign country.   Interestingly, if the responding state tribunal finds the French tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the respondent, additional action may be taken. In a Convention case, the responding state tribunal may establish a child-support order if it has personal jurisdiction over the respondent without requesting a separate application for establishment of a new order.   Related to Convention: art. 2. Scope; art. 19. Scope of the chapter; art. 20. Bases for recognition and enforcement; art. 32. Enforcement under internal law; art. 62. Reservations.   ANNOTATION   This section was adopted to extend long-arm jurisdiction as far as constitutionally permissible, but without establishing “child-state jurisdiction” under which the support duty and child's location, alone, would provide the jurisdictional nexus for a support order. In re Malwitz, 81 P.3d 1076 (Colo. App. 2003), rev'd on other grounds, 99 P.3d 56 (Colo. 2004).   Nonresident father's out-of-state abuse and harassment satisfies subsection (5). Father's domestic abuse against mother in Texas and awareness that mother's family ties were in Colorado and mother might move to Colorado with child to escape the abuse were sufficient to constitute “acts or directives” within the meaning of subsection (5). In re Malwitz, 99 P.3d 56 (Colo. 2004).   Trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident father whose abuse and harassment of mother in Texas caused mother and child to flee to Colorado and seek public assistance was consistent with due process. In re Malwitz, 99 P.3d 56 (Colo. 2004).   Colorado court enforcing foreign judgment against Colorado resident must consider not only whether the foreign court had personal jurisdiction under its laws, but also whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the foreign state is consistent with the constitution and laws of the United States. The district court is required to adjudicate whether husband had sufficient minimum contacts with England to render constitutional under United States law the assertion of jurisdiction over him by the English court. In re Lohman, 2015 COA 134 , 361 P.3d 1110.   Applied in In re Haddad, 93 P.3d 617 (Colo. App. 2004).