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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-109 (2026)

Appearance and limited immunity

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

(1) A party to a child-custody proceeding, including a modification proceeding, or a petitioner or respondent in a proceeding to enforce or register a child-custody determination, is not subject to personal jurisdiction in this state for another proceeding or purpose solely by reason of having participated, or of having been physically present for the purpose of participating, in the proceeding.

(2) A person who is subject to personal jurisdiction in this state on a basis other than physical presence is not immune from service of process in this state. A party present in this state who is subject to the jurisdiction of another state is not immune from service of process allowable under the laws of that state.

(3) The immunity granted by subsection (1) of this section does not extend to civil litigation based on acts unrelated to the participation in a proceeding under this article committed by an individual while present in this state.

Source: L. 2000: Entire article R&RE, p. 1522, § 1, effective July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1978–1986 · leading case: Brock v. Dist. Court of the Cnty. of Boulder in the 20th Jud. Dist., 620 P.2d 11 (Colo. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brock v. Dist. Court of the Cnty. of Boulder in the 20th Jud. Dist., 620 P.2d 11 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 3× “Where, as here, no compelling reason exists for the exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction, and the child has been retained in this state by the non-custodial parent after the term of visitation has expired, the respondent court has no basis in fact or law to grant the…”
Woodhouse v. Dist. Court, Etc., 587 P.2d 1199 (Colo. 1978). · cites it 3× “Section 14-13-109, C.R.S. 1973. Thus, a determination of this case by an English court should lead to a result consistent with the purposes of the Act.”
Ramos v. Lamm, 539 F. Supp. 730 (D. Colo. 1982). “§ 14-13-109(3) Jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct.”
In Re Custody of Dunn, 701 P.2d 158 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “(inconvenient forum), or § 14-13-109, C.R.S. (misconduct of petitioner).”
In re the Marriage of Severn, 608 P.2d 381 (Colo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 5× “Thereafter, she filed a motion requesting the court to decline to exercise jurisdiction as to custody pursuant to § 14-13-109(1), C.R.S. 1973, which provides: “If the petitioner for an initial [child custody determination] decree has wrongfully taken the child from another state…”
Dunn v. Franklin, 701 P.2d 158 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “(inconvenient forum), or § 14-13-109, C.R.S. (misconduct of petitioner).”
Bakke v. Dist. Court In & For the Fourth Jud. Dist., 719 P.2d 313 (Colo. 1986). · cites it 2× “Section 14-13-109(2), 6 C.R.S. (1973), provides that: [ujnless required in the interest of the child, the court shall not exercise its jurisdiction to modify a custody decree of another state if the petitioner, without consent of the person entitled to custody, has improperly…”
Bakke v. Dist. Court 4th Jud. Dist., 719 P.2d 313 (Colo. 1986). · cites it 2× “Section 14-13-109(2), 6 C.R.S. (1973), provides that: [u]nless required in the interest of the child, the court shall not exercise its jurisdiction to modify a custody decree of another state if the petitioner, without consent of the person entitled to custody, has improperly…”
In re the Custody of Johnson, 634 P.2d 1034 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “Based on that Act, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the custody action unless the Texas court, which it held could have jurisdiction under § 14-13-109(2), C.R.S. 1973, would defer to it for custody decisions.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-109(1) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Severn, 608 P.2d 381 (Colo. Ct. App. 1980). “Thereafter, she filed a motion requesting the court to decline to exercise jurisdiction as to custody pursuant to § 14-13-109(1), C.R.S. 1973, which provides: “If the petitioner for an initial [child custody determination] decree has wrongfully taken the child from another state…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-109(2) — 4 cases
Brock v. Dist. Court of the Cnty. of Boulder in the 20th Jud. Dist., 620 P.2d 11 (Colo. 1980). “Where, as here, no compelling reason exists for the exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction, and the child has been retained in this state by the non-custodial parent after the term of visitation has expired, the respondent court has no basis in fact or law to grant the…”
Bakke v. Dist. Court In & For the Fourth Jud. Dist., 719 P.2d 313 (Colo. 1986). “Section 14-13-109(2), 6 C.R.S. (1973), provides that: [ujnless required in the interest of the child, the court shall not exercise its jurisdiction to modify a custody decree of another state if the petitioner, without consent of the person entitled to custody, has improperly…”
Bakke v. Dist. Court 4th Jud. Dist., 719 P.2d 313 (Colo. 1986). “Section 14-13-109(2), 6 C.R.S. (1973), provides that: [u]nless required in the interest of the child, the court shall not exercise its jurisdiction to modify a custody decree of another state if the petitioner, without consent of the person entitled to custody, has improperly…”
In re the Custody of Johnson, 634 P.2d 1034 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981). “Based on that Act, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the custody action unless the Texas court, which it held could have jurisdiction under § 14-13-109(2), C.R.S. 1973, would defer to it for custody decisions.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-109(3) — 1 case
Ramos v. Lamm, 539 F. Supp. 730 (D. Colo. 1982). “§ 14-13-109(3) Jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct.”
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.