I. Concurrent Jurisdiction with Interstate Custody Cases

C.R.S. § 14-13-101
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) governs interstate custody cases. 

C.R.S. §14-13-102(4)
(unofficial comment)
The purposes of the UCCJEA include avoiding jurisdictional conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody, which have in the past resulted in the shifting of children from state to state. 

C.R.S. § 14-13-201(1)
The “custody proceedings” covered by the UCCJEA include D&N cases. Under the UCCJEA, a state has jurisdiction to make child custody determinations if:
  • This is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding; or
  • This was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or persons acting as the child’s parent continues to live in this state; or
  • A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under that state’s law; or
  • A court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum and the child and the child’s parent or the person acting as the child’s parent have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence and substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships.
C.R.S. § 14-13-204
People in the Interest of M.C., 94 P.3d 1220 (Colo. App. 2004)
A Colorado juvenile court has jurisdiction to protect children who are temporarily in the state from abuse or maltreatment regardless of their domicile. This allows for the court to make temporary custody and protective orders, but does not grant authority to make a permanent custody disposition.

C.R.S. § 14-13-204(4)
The Colorado judge should contact the child’s home state judge to request permission to modify any preexisting orders for emergency purposes. 

People in the Interest of D.P., 181 P.3d 403 (Colo. App. 2008)
A judge’s use of the law clerk to speak with an out-of-state judge does not comply with the UCCJEA.

Denver v. District Court, 675 P.2d 312 (Colo. 1984)
In Denver v. District Court, the father had a pending custody order from Texas when a D&N petition was filed in Colorado. The juvenile court denied the father’s motion challenging jurisdiction, so he filed a habeas corpus action in Colorado district court. The district court granted his request for custody and ordered DHS to turn the child over to him. The Colorado Supreme Court held the district court had no jurisdiction to issue that order based on the juvenile court’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction.

People in the Interest of T.R.W., 759 P.2d 768 (Colo. App. 1988)
However, the juvenile court loses jurisdiction over custody issues once it determines the child is not neglected or dependent. For example, in People in the Interest of T.R.W., the father had custody of his two children. After a D&N petition was filed against the father, the juvenile court transferred custody of both children to the mother. The jury adjudicated only one of the children neglected or dependent. The other child had to be returned to the father because the juvenile court no longer had jurisdiction over his custody.