Colorado

Family Law

Family Law

Section 14-5-711 – Modification of Convention child support order

(a) 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:

(1) 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
(2) The foreign tribunal lacks or refuses to exercise jurisdiction to modify its support order or issue a new support order.
(b) 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.

C.R.S. § 14-5-711

Added by 2015 Ch. 173,§ 32, eff. 7/1/2015.
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, supra, 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, supra. 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.

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.