Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-12-101 (2026)

Legislative declaration

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is the declared public policy of this state to maintain desirable marital and family relations; to promote and foster the marriage relationship and reconciliation of estranged spouses; and to take reasonable measures to preserve marriages, particularly where minor children are involved, in the interest of strengthening the family life foundation of our society, and in reducing the economic and social costs to the state resulting from broken homes. In furtherance of this policy, it is the purpose of this article to make competent marriage counseling services available through the district courts of the state to spouses involved in domestic difficulties.

Source: L. 60: p. 131, § 1. CRS 53: § 46-5-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 46-5-1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1977–1988 · leading case: R.Mcg. v. J.W., 615 P.2d 666 (Colo. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
R.Mcg. v. J.W., 615 P.2d 666 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 6× “"(a) To strengthen and preserve the integrity of marriage and to safeguard meaningful family relationships;" These purposes are again expressed in our marriage counseling statute, section 14-12-101, C.R.S.1973, as follows: "XX-XX-XXX.”
In Re Marriage of Peterson, 572 P.2d 849 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 3× “" Section 14-12-101, C.R.S.1973. We agree with the wife that, for the final three months of 1975 when the parties were no longer living together, the court incorrectly computed the amount of additional maintenance due her under the formula set forth in the decree.”
Zavala v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 759 P.2d 664 (Colo. 1988). · cites it 2× “See § 14-12-101, 6B C.R.S. (1987). The court then held that a school district policy prohibiting married students from participating in extracurricular activities served no compelling state interest and, therefore, improperly discriminated against married students on the basis…”
Beeson v. Kiowa Cnty. Sch. Dist. Re-1, 567 P.2d 801 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “Therefore, we do not consider the validity of a policy which would preclude plaintiff from participating in extracurricular activities because she was the mother of a young child, or whether a policy would be valid if it required married women to meet certain requirements in…”
Hooven v. Quintana, 618 P.2d 702 (Colo. Ct. App. 1980). “See §§ 14-12-101 and 18-6-501, C.R.S. 1973. Hence, the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of unjust enrichment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.