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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-104 (2026)

International application of article

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

(1) A court of this state shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for the purpose of applying this part 1 and part 2 of this article.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section, a child-custody determination made in a foreign country under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards of this article must be recognized and enforced under part 3 of this article.

(3) A court of this state need not apply this article if the child-custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.

Source: L. 2000: Entire article R&RE, p. 1521, § 1, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 14-13-124 as it existed prior to 2000.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: L.G. v. People, 890 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
L.G. v. People, 890 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1995). · cites it 23× “First, the court must determine, under the requirements of section 14-13-104, 6B C.R.S. (1987), whether it has jurisdiction.”
People in Interest of SB, 742 P.2d 935 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 13× “Section 14-13-104, C.R.S., which is identical to the South Carolina statute ( S.”
Barden v. Blau, 712 P.2d 481 (Colo. 1986). · cites it 27× “Thus, in deciding whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, reference must be made to section 14-13-104, 6 C.R.S. (1973), which contains the provisions governing jurisdiction.”
in Interest of A.B-A, 2019 COA 125 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 12× “§ 14-13-104, C.R.S. 2018; In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning T.”
Roberts v. Dist. Court of Larimer Cty., 596 P.2d 65 (Colo. 1979). · cites it 20× “Section 14-13-104, C.R.S.1973. The district court based its finding of jurisdiction here *68 on the fact that there was an emergency which required the protection of the child from mistreatment or neglect under section 14-13-104(1)(c), C.”
Nistico v. Dist. Court, Cnty. of Montrose, 791 P.2d 1128 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 17× “Within the framework of this case we must determine whether the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over Nelson’s petition under the provisions of section 14-13-104 of the UCCJA. See Barden v.”
Brock v. Dist. Court of the Cnty. of Boulder in the 20th Jud. Dist., 620 P.2d 11 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 12× “Prior to the court’s determination of the motion to dismiss the father submitted psychiatric and psychological reports that indicated the child was hyperactive and was experiencing a childhood adjustment disorder. The court denied the petitioner’s motion to dismiss and awarded…”
In re the Parental Responsibilities Concerning T.L.B., 272 P.3d 1148 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 14-13-104 emt., C.R.S. 2011. Nothing in the record here supports the conclusion that the exception applies to Canada.”
E.P. v. Dist. Court of Garfield Cnty., 696 P.2d 254 (Colo. 1985). · cites it 8× “Section 14-13-104, 6 C.R.S. (1973), which contains the jurisdictional grant pertinent to this case, states: (1) A court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if:…”
People Ex Rel. Ajc, 88 P.3d 599 (Colo. 2004). · cites it 9× “First, a court was required to determine whether, as a threshold matter, it could properly exercise jurisdiction over a case pursuant to section 14-13-104 of the UCCJA. L.G., 890 P.”
In Re Marriage of Tonnessen, 937 P.2d 863 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 9× “Section 14-13-104, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
In Re the Marriage of Tatum, 653 P.2d 74 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “He argues that such evidence would have been relevant in conferring jurisdiction on the trial court under § 14-13-104(l)(c), C.R.S. 1973. Husband misconstrues the pertinent provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Juris *77 diction Act.”
Show all 54 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-104(1) — 17 cases
Brock v. Dist. Court of the Cnty. of Boulder in the 20th Jud. Dist., 620 P.2d 11 (Colo. 1980). “Prior to the court’s determination of the motion to dismiss the father submitted psychiatric and psychological reports that indicated the child was hyperactive and was experiencing a childhood adjustment disorder. The court denied the petitioner’s motion to dismiss and awarded…”
L.G. v. People, 890 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1995). “First, the court must determine, under the requirements of section 14-13-104, 6B C.R.S. (1987), whether it has jurisdiction.”
Barden v. Blau, 712 P.2d 481 (Colo. 1986). “Thus, in deciding whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, reference must be made to section 14-13-104, 6 C.R.S. (1973), which contains the provisions governing jurisdiction.”
E.P. v. Dist. Court of Garfield Cnty., 696 P.2d 254 (Colo. 1985). “Section 14-13-104, 6 C.R.S. (1973), which contains the jurisdictional grant pertinent to this case, states: (1) A court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if:…”
Kudler v. Smith, 643 P.2d 783 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-104(1)(a) — 8 cases
Barden v. Blau, 712 P.2d 481 (Colo. 1986). “Thus, in deciding whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, reference must be made to section 14-13-104, 6 C.R.S. (1973), which contains the provisions governing jurisdiction.”
People in Interest of SB, 742 P.2d 935 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987). “Section 14-13-104, C.R.S., which is identical to the South Carolina statute ( S.”
Petition of Edilson, 637 P.2d 362 (Colo. 1981).
People Ex Rel. Ajc, 88 P.3d 599 (Colo. 2004). “First, a court was required to determine whether, as a threshold matter, it could properly exercise jurisdiction over a case pursuant to section 14-13-104 of the UCCJA. L.G., 890 P.”
In Re Custody of Dunn, 701 P.2d 158 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-104(1)(b) — 8 cases
People in Interest of SB, 742 P.2d 935 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987). “Section 14-13-104, C.R.S., which is identical to the South Carolina statute ( S.”
Barden v. Blau, 712 P.2d 481 (Colo. 1986). “Thus, in deciding whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, reference must be made to section 14-13-104, 6 C.R.S. (1973), which contains the provisions governing jurisdiction.”
In Re Custody of Dunn, 701 P.2d 158 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
Nistico v. Dist. Court, Cnty. of Montrose, 791 P.2d 1128 (Colo. 1990). “Within the framework of this case we must determine whether the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over Nelson’s petition under the provisions of section 14-13-104 of the UCCJA. See Barden v.”
Johnson v. Dist. Court, Etc., 654 P.2d 827 (Colo. 1982).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-104(1)(c) — 4 cases
Roberts v. Dist. Court of Larimer Cty., 596 P.2d 65 (Colo. 1979). “Section 14-13-104, C.R.S.1973. The district court based its finding of jurisdiction here *68 on the fact that there was an emergency which required the protection of the child from mistreatment or neglect under section 14-13-104(1)(c), C.”
Johnson v. Dist. Court, Etc., 654 P.2d 827 (Colo. 1982).
Barden v. Blau, 712 P.2d 481 (Colo. 1986). “Thus, in deciding whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, reference must be made to section 14-13-104, 6 C.R.S. (1973), which contains the provisions governing jurisdiction.”
Bakke v. Dist. Court 4th Jud. Dist., 719 P.2d 313 (Colo. 1986).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-104(1)(d) — 2 cases
People Ex Rel. Ajc, 88 P.3d 599 (Colo. 2004). “First, a court was required to determine whether, as a threshold matter, it could properly exercise jurisdiction over a case pursuant to section 14-13-104 of the UCCJA. L.G., 890 P.”
Bakke v. Dist. Court 4th Jud. Dist., 719 P.2d 313 (Colo. 1986).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-104(2) — 6 cases
In re the Parental Responsibilities Concerning T.L.B., 272 P.3d 1148 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “§ 14-13-104 emt., C.R.S. 2011. Nothing in the record here supports the conclusion that the exception applies to Canada.”
in Interest of A.B-A, 2019 COA 125 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 14-13-104, C.R.S. 2018; In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning T.”
Bakke v. Dist. Court In & For the Fourth Jud. Dist., 719 P.2d 313 (Colo. 1986).
Bakke v. Dist. Court 4th Jud. Dist., 719 P.2d 313 (Colo. 1986).
Peo in Interest of CT (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-104(3) — 1 case
in Interest of A.B-A, 2019 COA 125 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 14-13-104, C.R.S. 2018; In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning T.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-104(l)(a) — 16 cases
People in Interest of SB, 742 P.2d 935 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987). “Section 14-13-104, C.R.S., which is identical to the South Carolina statute ( S.”
L.G. v. People, 890 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1995). “First, the court must determine, under the requirements of section 14-13-104, 6B C.R.S. (1987), whether it has jurisdiction.”
Kraft v. Dist. Ct. in & for City, Etc., 593 P.2d 321 (Colo. 1979).
Lynch v. Lynch, 770 P.2d 1383 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
Lopez v. Dist. Court, Fourth Jud. Dist., Etc., 606 P.2d 853 (Colo. 1980).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-104(l)(b) — 15 cases
L.G. v. People, 890 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1995). “First, the court must determine, under the requirements of section 14-13-104, 6B C.R.S. (1987), whether it has jurisdiction.”
Nistico v. Dist. Court, Cnty. of Montrose, 791 P.2d 1128 (Colo. 1990). “Within the framework of this case we must determine whether the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over Nelson’s petition under the provisions of section 14-13-104 of the UCCJA. See Barden v.”
In Re Marriage of Tonnessen, 937 P.2d 863 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). “Section 14-13-104, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Lopez v. Dist. Court, Fourth Jud. Dist., Etc., 606 P.2d 853 (Colo. 1980).
In re the Custody of K.R., 897 P.2d 896 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-104(l)(c) — 11 cases
In Re the Marriage of Tatum, 653 P.2d 74 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982). “He argues that such evidence would have been relevant in conferring jurisdiction on the trial court under § 14-13-104(l)(c), C.R.S. 1973. Husband misconstrues the pertinent provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Juris *77 diction Act.”
Roberts v. Dist. Court of Larimer Cty., 596 P.2d 65 (Colo. 1979). “Section 14-13-104, C.R.S.1973. The district court based its finding of jurisdiction here *68 on the fact that there was an emergency which required the protection of the child from mistreatment or neglect under section 14-13-104(1)(c), C.”
E.P. v. Dist. Court of Garfield Cnty., 696 P.2d 254 (Colo. 1985). “Section 14-13-104, 6 C.R.S. (1973), which contains the jurisdictional grant pertinent to this case, states: (1) A court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if:…”
L.G. v. People, 890 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1995). “First, the court must determine, under the requirements of section 14-13-104, 6B C.R.S. (1987), whether it has jurisdiction.”
Brock v. Dist. Court of the Cnty. of Boulder in the 20th Jud. Dist., 620 P.2d 11 (Colo. 1980). “Prior to the court’s determination of the motion to dismiss the father submitted psychiatric and psychological reports that indicated the child was hyperactive and was experiencing a childhood adjustment disorder. The court denied the petitioner’s motion to dismiss and awarded…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-104(l)(d) — 5 cases
L.G. v. People, 890 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1995). “First, the court must determine, under the requirements of section 14-13-104, 6B C.R.S. (1987), whether it has jurisdiction.”
Lynch v. Lynch, 770 P.2d 1383 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
In Re the Marriage of Dickson, 983 P.2d 44 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
Bakke v. Dist. Court In & For the Fourth Jud. Dist., 719 P.2d 313 (Colo. 1986).
In re People, 88 P.3d 599 (Colo. 2004).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-104(lXa) — 1 case
In re the Custody of Johnson, 634 P.2d 1034 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981).
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.