(1) No final decree of adoption shall be attacked by reason of any jurisdictional or procedural defect after the expiration of ninety-one days following the entry of the final decree; except that, in cases of stepparent adoption, no final decree of adoption shall be attacked by reason of fraud upon the court or fraud upon a party, whether or not there is a jurisdictional or procedural defect, after the expiration of one year following the entry of the final decree of adoption.
(2) When a final decree of adoption is attacked on any basis at any time, the court shall consider the best interests of the child, taking into account the factors set forth in section 14-10- 124, C.R.S. The court shall sustain the decree unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the decree is not in the best interests of the child.
Source: L. 87: Entire title R&RE, p. 811, § 1, effective October 1. L. 94: Entire section amended, p. 752, § 5, effective April 20; entire section amended, p. 1198, § 2, effective May 19. L. 2012: (1) amended, (SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 880, § 143, effective July 1.
Editor's note: (1) This section was contained in a title that was repealed and reenacted in 1987. Provisions of this section, as it existed in 1987, are similar to those contained in 19-4- 116 as said section existed in 1986, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this title.
(2) Amendments to this section in House Bill 94-1042 and Senate Bill 94-5 were harmonized.
Notes of Decisions
People ex rel. C.L.S., 313 P.3d 662 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “2011 (termination of parental rights in course of adoption proceedings); § 19-5-214(2), C.R.S.2011 (final decree of adoption).”
Taylor Ex Rel. Adoption of M.R.D., 134 P.3d 579 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “See § 19-5-214(2), C.R.S.2005 (requiring court to sustain final decree of adoption when attacked on any basis if there is no clear and convincing evidence that the decree is not in the best interests of the child).”
Petition of SO, 795 P.2d 254 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 2× “His action also was timely under section 19-5-214, 8B C.R.S. (1989 Supp.), which requires an action challenging a final decree of adoption because of a jurisdictional or procedural defect to be brought within two years.”
In Re the Adoption of P.H.A., 899 P.2d 345 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “138, § 19-5-214 at 811. C.P.A. contends that the trial court erred in determining that the referenced statute applied to bar his motion.”
M.C. v. Adoption Choices of Colorado, 369 P.3d 659 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 5× “They contended that under section 19-5-214(2), C.R.S.2014, the adoptions could be set aside only upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the decrees were not in the best interests of the children.”
In re J.M.A., 240 P.3d 547 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Laws 211 -12 (now codified as amended at § 19-5-214(1), C.R.S.2009), should not be construed to bar as untimely a motion to vacate final decrees of adoption filed several years after the expiration of the two-year limitations period set forth in the statute.”
In re S.D., 251 P.3d 1188 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “…until the adoption was finalized." . The modern statute contains a shorter, ninety-day limitations period. See § 19-5-214(1), C.R.S.2010.”
In Re Jma, 240 P.3d 547 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Laws 211 -12 (now codified as amended at § 19-5-214(1), C.R.S.2009), should not be construed to bar as untimely a motion to vacate final decrees of adoption filed several years after the expiration of the two-year limitations period set forth in the statute.”
In Re Sd, 251 P.3d 1188 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “…until the adoption was finalized." [5] The modern statute contains a shorter, ninety-day limitations period. See § 19-5-214(1), C.R.S.2010.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-5-214(1) — 5 cases
In Re the Adoption of P.H.A., 899 P.2d 345 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
“138, § 19-5-214 at 811. C.P.A. contends that the trial court erred in determining that the referenced statute applied to bar his motion.”
In re J.M.A., 240 P.3d 547 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
“Laws 211 -12 (now codified as amended at § 19-5-214(1), C.R.S.2009), should not be construed to bar as untimely a motion to vacate final decrees of adoption filed several years after the expiration of the two-year limitations period set forth in the statute.”
In re S.D., 251 P.3d 1188 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
“…until the adoption was finalized." . The modern statute contains a shorter, ninety-day limitations period. See § 19-5-214(1), C.R.S.2010.”
In Re Jma, 240 P.3d 547 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
“Laws 211 -12 (now codified as amended at § 19-5-214(1), C.R.S.2009), should not be construed to bar as untimely a motion to vacate final decrees of adoption filed several years after the expiration of the two-year limitations period set forth in the statute.”
In Re Sd, 251 P.3d 1188 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
“…until the adoption was finalized." [5] The modern statute contains a shorter, ninety-day limitations period. See § 19-5-214(1), C.R.S.2010.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-5-214(2) — 3 cases
People ex rel. C.L.S., 313 P.3d 662 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“2011 (termination of parental rights in course of adoption proceedings); § 19-5-214(2), C.R.S.2011 (final decree of adoption).”
Taylor Ex Rel. Adoption of M.R.D., 134 P.3d 579 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
“See § 19-5-214(2), C.R.S.2005 (requiring court to sustain final decree of adoption when attacked on any basis if there is no clear and convincing evidence that the decree is not in the best interests of the child).”
M.C. v. Adoption Choices of Colorado, 369 P.3d 659 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
“They contended that under section 19-5-214(2), C.R.S.2014, the adoptions could be set aside only upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the decrees were not in the best interests of the children.”
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.