(1) Except as otherwise provided in section 14-13-204, or by other law of this state, if a person seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a court of this state under this article has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction unless:
(a) The parents and all persons acting as parents have acquiesced in the exercise of jurisdiction;
(b) A court of the state otherwise having jurisdiction under a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial conformity with sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203 determines that this state is a more appropriate forum under a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial conformity with section 14-13-207; or
(c) No court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial conformity with sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203.
(2) If a court of this state declines to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, it may fashion an appropriate remedy to ensure the safety of the child and prevent a repetition of the unjustifiable conduct, including staying the proceeding until a child-custody proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction under a provision of law adopted by that state that is in substantial conformity with sections 14-13-201 to 14-13-203.
(3) If a court dismisses a petition or stays a proceeding because it declines to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, it shall assess against the party seeking to invoke its jurisdiction necessary and reasonable expenses including costs, communication expenses, attorney fees, investigative fees, expenses for witnesses, travel expenses, and child care during the course of the proceedings, unless the party from whom fees are sought establishes that the assessment would be clearly inappropriate. The court may not assess fees, costs, or expenses against this state unless authorized by law other than this article.
Source: L. 2000: Entire article R&RE, p. 1528, § 1, effective July 1.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 14-13-109 as it existed prior to 2000.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · 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 2× “has engaged in unjustifiable conduct,” a possibility that is not at issue here, § 14-13-208(1), C.R.S. (2020). ¶50 The word “decline” combined with an exclusive list of reasons for declining “suggest[s] that the home state must have .”
Marriage of Brandt v. Brandt, 268 P.3d 406 (Colo. 2012).
“137 We first stress that, for purposes of modification jurisdiction, only the state that originally entered the custody order may decide that another forum would be more convenient See § 14-13-208(1)(a). Second, while the UCCJEA for some purposes does prioritize the "home…”
In re the Parental Responsibilities of L.S., 257 P.3d 201 (Colo. 2011).
· cites it 3× “" And while section 14-13-208, C.R.S. (2010), permits this state to modify an initial child-custody determination of another state only if that state no longer has exelusive, continuing jurisdiction, the comment to that section indicates that it intends only to limit our…”
People Ex Rel. Ajc, 88 P.3d 599 (Colo. 2004).
“Apart from the misconduct of a party, which may require the state with jurisdiction to decline it, see § 14-13-208, jurisdiction may be declined only for the reason that the court with jurisdiction determines that it would be an inconvenient forum under the circumstances of the…”
In re B.C.B., 411 P.3d 926 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “See § 14-13-208 cmt. ("The focus in this section is on the unjustified conduct of the person who invokes the jurisdiction of the court.”
Peo in Interest of ALB (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 7× “See § 14-13-208, C.R.S. 2024 (requiring, with some exceptions, a juvenile court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction when a person “has engaged in unjustifiable conduct”).”
In re People, 88 P.3d 599 (Colo. 2004).
“Apart from the misconduct of a party, which may require the state with jurisdiction to decline it, see § 14-13-208, jurisdiction may be declined only for the reason that the court with jurisdiction determines that it would be an inconvenient forum under the circumstances of the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-208(1) — 2 cases
in Int. of S.A.G, 2021 CO 38 (Colo. 2021).
“has engaged in unjustifiable conduct,” a possibility that is not at issue here, § 14-13-208(1), C.R.S. (2020). ¶50 The word “decline” combined with an exclusive list of reasons for declining “suggest[s] that the home state must have .”
In re B.C.B., 411 P.3d 926 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
“See § 14-13-208 cmt. ("The focus in this section is on the unjustified conduct of the person who invokes the jurisdiction of the court.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-13-208(1)(a) — 1 case
Marriage of Brandt v. Brandt, 268 P.3d 406 (Colo. 2012).
“137 We first stress that, for purposes of modification jurisdiction, only the state that originally entered the custody order may decide that another forum would be more convenient See § 14-13-208(1)(a). Second, while the UCCJEA for some purposes does prioritize the "home…”
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.