CO Code § 19-4-110 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 19 - Children's Code|Article 4 - Uniform Parentage Act|§ 19-4-110. Parties

 The child may be made a party to the action. If the child is a minor, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem. The child's mother or father may not represent the child as guardian or otherwise. The court shall make the natural mother, each man presumed to be the father under section 19-4-105 , and each man alleged to be the natural father parties or, if not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, provide notice of the action in a manner prescribed by the court and an opportunity to be heard. If a man who is alleged to be the natural father is deceased, the court shall make the personal representative of his estate, if one has been appointed, a party. If a personal representative has not been appointed, the court shall make the deceased man's spouse or an immediate blood relative a party. If a spouse or immediate blood relative is not known or does not exist, the court shall appoint a representative for the alleged natural father who is deceased. The court may align the parties. When the person to be served has no residence within Colorado and his or her place of residence is not known or when he or she cannot be found within the state after due diligence, service must be by publication pursuant to rule 4 (g) of the Colorado rules of civil procedure; except that service must be by a single publication and must be completed not less than five days prior to the time set for hearing on paternity adjudication.   History. Source: L. 87: Entire title R&RE, p. 796, § 1, effective October 1. L. 93: Entire section amended, p. 954, § 3, effective May 28. L. 2006: Entire section amended, p. 517, § 4, effective August 7. L. 2016: Entire section amended,(HB 16-1165), ch. 157, p. 496, § 9, effective January 1, 2017.    Editor's note:   This section was contained in a title that was repealed and reenacted in 1987. Provisions of this section, as it existed in 1987, are similar to those contained in 19-6-110 as said section existed in 1986, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this title.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For comment, “Bastardizing the Legitimate Child: The Colorado Supreme Court Invalidates the Uniform Parentage Act Presumption of Legitimacy in R. McG. v. J.W.”, see 59 Den. L.J. 157 (1981).   Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.   People had standing to bring action. Evidence showing that mother was receiving assistance from county department of public welfare for benefit of child was sufficient to allow the people to have standing to bring action to establish paternity. People in Interest of A.A.T., 191 Colo. 494 , 554 P.2d 302 (1976).   For case holding that under former law child was not party to paternity action, see People in Interest of R.D.S., 183 Colo. 89 , 514 P.2d 772 (1973).   The child is an indispensable party to a paternity proceeding. Unless the child can be made a party, the trial court is without jurisdiction to resolve any matters pertaining to the paternity suit. In re Burkey, 689 P.2d 726 (Colo. App. 1984).   Intervention by department of social services. Where the interest of the department of social services in a support obligation owed to a dependent child is contingent on the outcome of a paternity action, it was improper to allow it to intervene as a party to the action. However, such action was harmless since the department could have enforced its interest derived from the paternity proceeding in a separate proceeding following entry of the order determining paternity. J.E.S. v. F.F., 762 P.2d 703 (Colo. App. 1988).   A child must be made a party to a paternity action and must be represented individually by an appropriate fiduciary despite the language in the statute that the court may appoint a guardian ad litem. People in Interest of E.E.A. v. J.M., 854 P.2d 1346 (Colo. App. 1992); S.O.V. v. People in Interest of M.C., 914 P.2d 355 (Colo. 1996).   Court deprived of subject matter jurisdiction where court failed to join or give notice to all presumed fathers and any alleged natural fathers. Court must join all presumed fathers and natural fathers over whom it may exercise personal jurisdiction and must give notice to those whom it cannot join. People ex rel. J.G.C., 2013 COA 171 , 318 P.3d 576.   Guardian ad litem is not a true party to a paternity proceeding. To be a true party, a person must be competent to sue, have the right to control the proceedings, to defend, to present and cross-examine witnesses, and to appeal in his or her own right. In a paternity proceeding, a guardian ad litem is appointed for the sole purpose of representing the child's best interests and, although the child is a party, the guardian ad litem does not have the right to control the proceedings, to defend the action, or to appeal in his or her own right. In Interest of A.R.W., 903 P.2d 10 (Colo. App. 1994).   While the trial court erred in determining its own subject matter jurisdiction, because the error in finding that the child did not have to be made a proper party could have been corrected on direct appeal, the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion bar any collateral attack on the trial court's original jurisdiction. People in Interest of E.E.A. v. J.M., 854 P.2d 1346 (Colo. App. 1992).   While the trial court erred in finding that the child did not have to be made a proper party, the error was based on a statute with inherently contradictory language and, therefore, the court did not manifestly abuse its authority in entertaining the action. People in Interest of E.E.A. v. J.M., 854 P.2d 1346 (Colo. App. 1992).   District court lacks jurisdiction to resolve matters in a paternity action unless each man presumed to be the children's father and each man alleged to be the children's natural father are made parties to or given notice of the action. In re Support of E.K., 2013 COA 99 , 410 P.3d 480.   Absent special circumstances, once a determination of paternity has been made and permanent orders entered resolving custody, child support, and parenting time, the appointment of the guardian ad litem terminates. The Uniform Parentage Act is ambiguous as to the length of the guardian ad litem's appointment and there is no reason why the child and parents should suffer the expense and continued invasion of privacy caused by the indefinite appointment of a guardian ad litem, although the court may conclude that appointment of a guardian is necessary for a limited purpose or duration when issues are raised after the entry of permanent orders. In Interest of A.R.W., 903 P.2d 10 (Colo. App. 1994).   The appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent a child's best interests in a paternity action continues during a direct appeal, initiated by one of the parties, from the permanent orders entered by the court in that action. In re S.R.H., 981 P.2d 199 (Colo. App. 1998), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. N.A.H. v. S.L.S., 9 P.3d 354 (Colo. 2000).   The 1993 amendment to this section was a change in procedural law and therefore applied to causes of action that existed on the effective date of the amendment. People ex rel. Orange Co. v. M.A.S., 962 P.2d 339 (Colo. App. 1998).   Applied in Jefferson Co. Dept. of Soc. Servs. v. D.A.G., 199 Colo. 315 , 607 P.2d 1004 (1980).