Welcome to SPARC Forums. Please login or sign up.

Oct 01, 2023, 09:04:46 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Colorado Statutes and Case Law Citings....

Started by trystero, Mar 13, 2009, 10:51:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic


I spent a lot of time compiling this list, hopefully others might find it helpful!


(big problems cutting and pasting from Word into here...have to retype it all).

(III) Upon request of the noncustodial parent, the court may order the custodial parent to submit an annual update of financial information using the approved standardized child support guideline forms, including information on the the actual expenses relating to the children of the marriage for whome support has been ordered.  The court shall not order the custodial parent to update such financial inforamation pursuant to thie subparagraph (III) in circumstances where the noncustodial parent ahas failed to exercise parenting rights or when child support payments are in arrears or where there is documneted evidence of domeistic viloence, child abuse, or a violoation of a protection order on part of teh noncustodical parent.  The court may order teh noncustodial parent to pay teh costs involved in preparing an update to teh financial information.  Ift he noncustodial prent claims, based upon the information in the updated form, that the custodical parent is not spending the child support for the benefit of the childrent, the court may refer the parties to a mediator to resolve the differences.  Ift here are coss for such mediation, the court shallo rder that the party requestion ght mediation pay such costs.


(14) Computation of child support.  (a) Except in cases of shared physical care or splity physical care as defined in subsection (8) and (9) of this section, a total child support obligation is determined by adding each parent's respective obligations for the basic child support obligation, work-related net child care costs, extraordinary medical expenses, and extraordinary adjustement to the schedule.  The parent receiving a child support payment shall be presumed to spend his or her total child support obligation directly on the children.  The parent paying child support to the other parent shall owe his or her total child support obligation as child support to the other parent, minus any ordered payments included in the calculations made directly on behalf of the children for work related net child care costs, extraordinary medical expenses, or extraordinary adjustments to the schedule.


In order for child support to be calculated according to shared physical custody, sufficient evidence must be submitted that each parent keeps the child overnight for more than 25% fo the time, and that both parents contribute to the expenses of teh children in addition to the payment of child support.  In re Redofrd, 776 P.2d 1149 (Colo. APp. 1989)

There is NO statutory requirement that any particular amount of expense be proven by the parent seeking a support adjustment for shared physical custody.  In re Redford, 776 P.2d 1149 (Colo App. 1989)

Application of shared custody formula that results in a support payment by the custodial parent to the noncustodial parent is not necessarily prohibited.  In re Antuna, 8 P.3d 589 (Colo App. 2000)


Parents net income is primary consideration in determining support.  With regard to a parent's ability to pay support for his child, net income after reasonable and justifiable business expenses should be the primary consideration.  In re Crowley, 663 P.2d 267 (Colo App. 1983)

The applicable rule of support ability is the father's ability to pay weighed against the reasonable needs of his children, because society does not require a father in poor or moderate circumstances to support children on a higher scale just because the family once so lived or because the mother may desire to so live after the divorce.  Kane v. Kane, 154 Colo 440, 391, P.2d 361 (1964)

In making its award of child support, a trial court must weigh the father's ability to pay against the reasonable needs of the children.  Berge v. Berge, 33 Colo App 376, 522 P.2d 752 (1974), affd, 189 Colo 103, 536 P.2d 1135 (1975)

Where the father's income, while substantial, is limited and subject to numerous demands, an order contemplating only the needs of the child and not bearing any relationship to the ability of the father to pay, and that could possibly become confiscatory of all the father's available resources, is not valid.  Van Orman v Van Orman, 30 Colo App. 177, 492 P.2d 81 (1971)