(1) A court of this state that has jurisdiction under this article to make a child-custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised upon motion of a party, the court's own motion, or request of another court.
(2) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including:
(a) Whether domestic violence or domestic abuse has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;
(b) The length of time the child has resided outside this state;
(c) The distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;
(d) The relative financial circumstances of the parties;
(e) Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;
(f) The nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;
(g) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and
(h) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.
(3) If a court of this state determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, it shall stay the proceedings upon condition that a child-custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state and may impose any other condition the court considers just and proper.
(4) A court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this article if a child-custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce, dissolution of marriage, or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce, dissolution of marriage, or other proceeding.
Source: L. 2000: Entire article R&RE, p. 1527, § 1, effective July 1.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 14-13-108 as it existed prior to 2000.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case:
in Int. of S.A.G, 2021 CO 38 (Colo. 2021).
in Int. of S.A.G, 2021 CO 38 (Colo. 2021).
· cites it 5× “Those two sections allow a court to decline jurisdiction if it would be an inconvenient forum, § 14-13-207, C.R.S. (2020) (listing eight factors that the court must consider), or if the “person seeking to invoke the jurisdiction .”
In the Interest of Madrone, 290 P.3d 478 (Colo. 2012).
· cites it 4× “te does not have jurisdiction under a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial conformity with paragraph (a) of this subsection (1), or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more…”
Marriage of Brandt v. Brandt, 268 P.3d 406 (Colo. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Inter-court communication facilitates an understanding between sister states regarding whether the issuing state has lost jurisdiction pursuant to section 14-13-202(1)(a)-(b) or -2083(1)(a)-(b), or declined to exercise jurisdiction in favor of a more convenient forum pursuant to…”
In Re the Welfare of S.R.S., 756 N.W.2d 123 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “On October 26, 2005, the Colorado court found that Colorado was an inconvenient forum based on Colo.Rev.Stat. § 14-13-207(1) (2005), stayed the motion, and transferred "jurisdiction of this case" to Minnesota.”
In re B.C.B., 411 P.3d 926 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “2014, and its multiple factor test, or determine that Colorado was an inconvenient forum, we reject father's contention that the court erred by applying that statute. 4. Simultaneous Proceedings ¶ 25 Father's contention that the district court should have exercised jurisdiction…”
In re the Parental Responsibilities of L.S., 257 P.3d 201 (Colo. 2011).
· cites it 2× “te does not have jurisdiction under a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial conformity with paragraph (a) of this subsection (1), or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more…”
People Ex Rel. Ajc, 88 P.3d 599 (Colo. 2004).
“See § 14-13-207. Significantly, under the scheme of the UCCJEA, jurisdiction may be declined only by the state with priority of jurisdiction and, apart from misconduct by a party, it may do so only by consciously and expressly determining that another state is the more…”
In Re Ls, 257 P.3d 201 (Colo. 2011).
· cites it 4× “" Despite there being colorable grounds to question the Nebraska court's conclusion, apparently made from nothing more than a brief minute order, that the Adams County District Court dismissed as an inconvenient forum in favor of Nebraska, see § 14-13-207, C.”
In re Interest of L.B., 413 P.3d 176 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “of another state does not have jurisdiction under a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial conformity with [subsection] (a)" or (2) "a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that [Colorado] is the more…”
Peo in Interest of RAE (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 5× “However, a court that retains home state jurisdiction may “decline[] to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of [another state] is the more 3 appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-207(1) — 5 cases
in Int. of S.A.G, 2021 CO 38 (Colo. 2021).
“Those two sections allow a court to decline jurisdiction if it would be an inconvenient forum, § 14-13-207, C.R.S. (2020) (listing eight factors that the court must consider), or if the “person seeking to invoke the jurisdiction .”
In Re the Welfare of S.R.S., 756 N.W.2d 123 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
“On October 26, 2005, the Colorado court found that Colorado was an inconvenient forum based on Colo.Rev.Stat. § 14-13-207(1) (2005), stayed the motion, and transferred "jurisdiction of this case" to Minnesota.”
In Re Ls, 226 P.3d 1227 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
Peo in Interest of RAE (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
“However, a court that retains home state jurisdiction may “decline[] to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of [another state] is the more 3 appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-207(1)(b) — 1 case
In Re Ls, 226 P.3d 1227 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-207(2) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-207(3) — 1 case
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.