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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-202 (2026)

Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction

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

(1) Except as otherwise provided in section 14-13-204, a court of this state that has made a child-custody determination consistent with section 14-13-201 or 14-13-203 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until: (a) A court of this state determines that the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships; or (b) A court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this state. (2) A court of this state that has made a child-custody determination and does not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under this section may modify that determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under section 14-13-201.

Source: L. 2000: Entire article R&RE, p. 1525, § 1, effective July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Marriage of Brandt v. Brandt, 268 P.3d 406 (Colo. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marriage of Brandt v. Brandt, 268 P.3d 406 (Colo. 2012). · cites it 19× “Modification 28 A state may modify the custody order of another state only if it would have jurisdiction to make an initial determination, and either: (a) The court of the [issuing] state determines that it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under [section…”
in Int. of S.A.G, 2021 CO 38 (Colo. 2021). · cites it 2× “has made a child-custody determination and does not have [the] exclusive, continuing jurisdiction” that results from having made that determination pursuant to section 14-13-201(1), the court “may modify that determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an initial…”
In Re the Marriage of Pritchett, 80 P.3d 918 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “2002; see § 14-13-202 official comment, C.R.S. 2002.”
in Int. of B.H, 2021 CO 39 (Colo. 2021). “§ 14-13-203(1) (cross-referencing §§ 14-13-202, -207, C.R.S. (2020)); see also C.”
Of Mmv, 2020 COA 94 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “§§ 14-13-202, -203(1)(a), C.R.S. 2019; M.”
People in re M.S, 2017 COA 60 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017). “§§ 14-13-202, -203(1)(a), C.R.S. 2016. Alternatively, either the court in the issuing state or a Colorado court may determine that the issuing state has been divested of jurisdiction because the child and parents do not presently reside in the issuing state.”
in Interest of A.B-A, 2019 COA 125 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 14-13-202, C.R.S. 2018. The foreign court’s jurisdiction continues until (1) the foreign court determines that it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction; (2) the foreign court declines jurisdiction on the ground that Colorado provides a 4 more convenient forum; or…”
People ex rel. C.L.T., 405 P.3d 510 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 14-13-202, C.R.S. 2016. ¶ 31 Under section 14-13-203, C.”
Fleckles v. Diamond, 2015 IL App (2d) 141229 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14-13-202 (1) (West 2014).”
In Re Marriage of Dedie & Springston, 255 P.3d 1142 (Colo. 2011). · cites it 2× “§ 14-13-202(1)(a), C.R.S. (2010); N.Y. Dom.”
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, IN the INTEREST OF Minor Child: S.A.G. & S.A.G., Minor Child v. B.A.G. & A.W.D., 487 P.3d 677 (Colo. 2021). “has made a child-custody determination and does not have [the] exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" that results from having made that determination pursuant to section 14-13-201 (1) , the court "may modify that determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an initial…”
R.W. & H.W. v. The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Minor Child E.W., 22 CO 51 (Colo. 2022). · cites it 12× “¶11 After the Colorado court made its initial custody determination, it retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to section 14-13-202. The termination hearing was not a new child-custody proceeding requiring the juvenile court to reestablish jurisdiction.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-202(1) — 5 cases
In Re the Marriage of Pritchett, 80 P.3d 918 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “2002; see § 14-13-202 official comment, C.R.S. 2002.”
Marriage of Brandt v. Brandt, 268 P.3d 406 (Colo. 2012). “Modification 28 A state may modify the custody order of another state only if it would have jurisdiction to make an initial determination, and either: (a) The court of the [issuing] state determines that it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under [section…”
R.W. & H.W. v. The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Minor Child E.W., 22 CO 51 (Colo. 2022). “¶11 After the Colorado court made its initial custody determination, it retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to section 14-13-202. The termination hearing was not a new child-custody proceeding requiring the juvenile court to reestablish jurisdiction.”
Peo in Interest of AR (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
Peo in Interest of CT (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-202(1)(a) — 4 cases
Marriage of Brandt v. Brandt, 268 P.3d 406 (Colo. 2012). “Modification 28 A state may modify the custody order of another state only if it would have jurisdiction to make an initial determination, and either: (a) The court of the [issuing] state determines that it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under [section…”
In Re Marriage of Dedie & Springston, 255 P.3d 1142 (Colo. 2011). “§ 14-13-202(1)(a), C.R.S. (2010); N.Y. Dom.”
R.W. & H.W. v. The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Minor Child E.W., 22 CO 51 (Colo. 2022). “¶11 After the Colorado court made its initial custody determination, it retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to section 14-13-202. The termination hearing was not a new child-custody proceeding requiring the juvenile court to reestablish jurisdiction.”
Peo in Interest of AR (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-202(1)(b) — 5 cases
Marriage of Brandt v. Brandt, 268 P.3d 406 (Colo. 2012). “Modification 28 A state may modify the custody order of another state only if it would have jurisdiction to make an initial determination, and either: (a) The court of the [issuing] state determines that it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under [section…”
R.W. & H.W. v. The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Minor Child E.W., 22 CO 51 (Colo. 2022). “¶11 After the Colorado court made its initial custody determination, it retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to section 14-13-202. The termination hearing was not a new child-custody proceeding requiring the juvenile court to reestablish jurisdiction.”
Peo in Interest of WMS (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Peo in Interest of AR (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
Curtis R. Thrapp v. Mary Elizabeth Thrapp (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-202(2) — 3 cases
in Int. of S.A.G, 2021 CO 38 (Colo. 2021). “has made a child-custody determination and does not have [the] exclusive, continuing jurisdiction” that results from having made that determination pursuant to section 14-13-201(1), the court “may modify that determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an initial…”
Peo in Interest of AR (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
Curtis R. Thrapp v. Mary Elizabeth Thrapp (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-202(b) — 2 cases
R.W. & H.W. v. The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Minor Child E.W., 22 CO 51 (Colo. 2022). “¶11 After the Colorado court made its initial custody determination, it retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to section 14-13-202. The termination hearing was not a new child-custody proceeding requiring the juvenile court to reestablish jurisdiction.”
Peo in Interest of WMS (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
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.