June 27, 2017

Name Change, Adoption, and Seal My Case Forms and Instructions Amended in August

The Colorado State Judicial Branch revised sixteen JDFs in August. The revised forms include change of name forms and instructions, a motion and order to seal criminal records, a motion to convert a legal separation to dissolution, and adoption forms and instructions. These revised forms are available here as PDF downloads or from the State Judicial forms page.

PLEASE NOTE: The court’s website hosting the JDF forms has been revised to eliminate the option of modifying the form itself. This decision was made to protect the integrity of forms presented to the court with a JDF designation. This will allow the court to know that forms with a JDF designation contain only the JDF version’s information. Users can continue to download the PDF version of the forms from the court’s website for completion but modification of the form itself is not available. CBA-CLE will continue to provide selected JDF forms in our books and in Bradforms in a word processable format. PLEASE REMEMBER, if you modify a JDF form, you must remove the JDF designation from the footer or the court may reject your filing.

ADOPTION

  • JDF 495 – Instructions for Second Parent Adoption Without Civil Union (R8/16)
  • JDF 498 – Instructions for Kinship Adoption (R8/16)
  • JDF 499 – Instructions for Custodial Adoption (R8/16)
  • JDF 500 – Instructions for Stepparent Adoption (R8/16)

DOMESTIC RELATIONS

  • JDF 1321 – Motion to Convert Decree of Legal Separation to Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (R8/16)

NAME CHANGE

  • JDF 385 – Instructions for Filing a Change of Name following Conviction/Adjudication for a Felony (R8/16)
  • JDF 387 – Final Decree for Change of Name to Obtain Identity-Related Documents (R8/16)
  • JDF 388 – Instructions for Filing a Change of Name for an Individual 70 Years of Age or Older (R8/16)
  • JDF 389 – Petition for Change of Name (70 Years of Age or Older) (R8/16)
  • JDF 420 – Instructions for Filing a Change of Name (Minor) (R8/16)
  • JDF 421 – Petition for Change of Name (Minor Child) (R8/16)
  • JDF 432 – Instructions for Filing a Change of Name (Adult) (R8/16)
  • JDF 433 – Petition for Change of Name (Adult) (R8/16)

SEAL MY CASE

  • JDF 477 – Motion to Seal Criminal Justice Records (R8/16)
  • JDF 478 – Order to Seal Criminal Justice Records (R8/16)

For all of State Judicial’s JDF forms, click here.

JDF Forms Amended in Domestic, Probate, Miscellaneous, and Other Categories

The Colorado State Judicial Branch continued revising forms in August and September. Revised forms include many instructions in the domestic relations category, some probate forms, the flexible caption and other miscellaneous forms, the district civil cover sheet, and more.

Forms are available for download here as PDF documents. For Word versions of most of the forms, visit State Judicial’s Forms page.

DOMESTIC

  • JDF 1099 – “Instructions to File for a Dissolution of Marriage or Legal Separation if there are No Children of this Marriage or if Children are Emancipated” (revised 9/14)
  • JDF 1100 – “Instructions to File Dissolution of Marriage or Legal Separation With Children of this Marriage” (revised 9/14)
  • JDF 1220 – “Instructions to Register a Foreign Decree Pursuant to § 14-11-101, C.R.S.” (revised 9/14)
  • JDF 1266 – “Instructions to File for a Dissolution or Legal Separation of Civil Union if there are No Children of this Civil Union or the Children are Emancipated” (revised 9/14)
  • JDF 1268 – “Instructions to File for a Declaration of Invalidity of a Civil Union (Annulment)” (revised 9/14)
  • JDF 1413i – “Instructions for Allocation of Parental Responsibilities” (revised 9/14)
  • JDF 1600 – “Instructions to File for a Declaration of Invalidity of Marriage (Annulment)” (revised 9/14)

PROBATE

  • JDF 840 – “Instructions for Appointment of a Guardian – Adult” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 862 – “Order Appointing Conservator for Minor” (revised 8/14)
  • JDF 921 – “Order Admitting Will to Formal Probate and Formal Appointment of Personal Representative” (revised 8/14)

MISCELLANEOUS

  • JDF 207 – “Request and Authorization for Payment of Fees” (revised 8/14)
  • Flexible Caption – “Standard Flexible Caption for Pleadings” (revised 8/14)

MONEY CASES

  • JDF 601 – “District Court Civil Cover Sheet” (revised 8/14)

NAME CHANGE

  • JDF 420 – “Instructions for Filing for a Change of Name (Minor)” (revised 9/14)
  • JDF 421 – “Petition for Change of Name (Minor Child)” (revised 9/14)

SEAL MY CASE

  • JDF 416 – “Instructions to File a Petition to Seal Arrest and Other Criminal Records Other Than Convictions” (revised 9/14)

For all of State Judicial’s forms, click here.

HB 13-1243: Requiring Specific Findings of Fact for Restrictions of Parenting Time

On February 28, 2013, Rep. Dave Young and Sen. Jessie Ulibarri introduced HB 13-1243 – Concerning Factual Findings Included in Parenting Time Orders. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill requires a court restricting parenting time based upon a finding that parenting time would endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impair the child’s emotional development to enumerate in its order the specific findings supporting the restriction on parenting time. The bill passed out of the House on March 18 and is assigned to the Judiciary Committee in the Senate.

Since this summary, the bill was laid over for Second Reading in the Senate on April 4.

HB 13-1204: Enactment of the “Uniform Premarital and Marital Agreements Act”

On February 1, 2013, Rep. Bob Gardner and Sen. Jessie Ulibarri introduced HB 13-1204 – Concerning the “Uniform Premarital and Marital Agreements Act.” This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Colorado Commission on Uniform State Laws

The bill enacts the “Uniform Premarital and Marital Agreements Act” (Act) drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. The bill describes the formation of premarital and marital agreements, when such agreements are effective, provisions that are unenforceable in premarital or marital agreements, and when an agreement is enforceable.

The bill makes changes to the Act with respect to the enforcement of spousal maintenance provisions in a premarital or marital agreement.

Under the bill, provisions relating to spousal maintenance are unenforceable if the provisions are unconscionable at the time of enforcement. The Act applies to premarital or marital agreements signed on or after July 1, 2014.

The bill amends a probate provision relating to the waiver of marital rights or obligations to conform to the Act.

The CBA LPC voted to support the bill with the amendments that were adopted in the House Judiciary Committee. On March 19, the House gave final approval of the bill; it is assigned to the Judiciary Committee in the Senate.

Civil Unions Bill Awaits Governor’s Signature

On Tuesday, March 12, 2013, the Colorado Legislature gave its approval to SB 13-011, “Concerning the Authorization of Civil Unions, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation.” The bill was introduced by Sens. Pat Steadman and Lucia Guzman, and Reps. Mark Ferrandino and Sue Schafer.

Senator Pat Steadman, who sponsored this year’s bill and also last year’s civil unions bill (SB 12-002) and the 2011 version (SB 11-172), issued the following statement on his website.

On Tuesday, March 12, 2013, the House of Representatives voted to pass SB 13-011 by a margin of 39 to 26.  All Democratic members of the House and Senate voted to support the extension of basic legal rights that SB 11 offers to couples in our state, as did a handful of Republican members.  The bill will soon be delivered to the desk of Governor John Hickenlooper for signature.

I’m incredibly proud of our state and this historic accomplishment.  We’ve come a long way from the dark days of 1992, when voters added a controversial and discriminatory provision to the Colorado Constitution that sought to exclude gays and lesbians from the equal protection of the law in our state.  The United States Supreme Court struck down “Amendment 2,” as it was known, in a 6 to 3 decision in 1996.  I sat in the courtroom the October day in 1995 when they heard oral arguments in the Romer v. Evans case.  Looking back on this chapter of our history puts today’s victory in perspective.

The road to equality is long and rocky.  We’ve overcome some major obstacles along the way, but there is more work still to do.  Another provision of the Colorado Constitution continues to discriminate against gay men and lesbians and prevent their equal inclusion in the fabric of our society.  Some day soon it too must be overturned.  As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the Romer v. Evans opinion, “A state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”  Passage of SB 11 helps remedy the inequality enshrined in our state constitution and ends the status of “strangers to our laws,” but we still have far to go before the promise of liberty and justice for all is fulfilled.

Governor Hickenlooper promised support of the bill in January’s State of the State address, where he urged the legislature to pass a bill allowing civil unions — “Some of us tried very hard, but it didn’t get done last year. This year, let’s do it. Let’s pass civil unions!”

The Colorado Bar Association has supported the civil unions bill for the second year in a row. The legislation has far-reaching effects, impacting not only domestic relations law but also estate planning, employment law, and other areas. We will continue to post about civil unions, including its effects on specific practice areas, using the civil unions tag. Stay tuned.

Colorado Supreme Court Updates Rules of Criminal and Civil Procedure

On March 7, 2013, the Colorado Supreme Court issued Rule Change 2013(03), amending Rules 5 and 7 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure. The changes to Rule 5, “Preliminary Procedings,” clarify language regarding the felony complaint, and adds language regarding waiver of the right to a preliminary hearing. The changes to Rule 7, “The Indictment and the Information,” discuss filing for preliminary hearings and set forth time limits. In addition, a subsection (i) was added, which provides time limits for requests to transfer cases to juvenile courts. A redline of the changes is available here.

The Supreme Court issued Rule Change 2013(02) on February 21, 2013, which changed Form 20 in the Appendix to Chapters 1 through 17A – Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule Change 2013(01) was issued on February 8, 2013. Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 16.2 and Rule 313, were amended with this rule change. The changes to Rule 16.2, “Court Facilitated Management of Domestic Relations Cases and General Provisions Governing Duty of Disclosure,” clarify that if an initial expert report is served early, the rebuttal report need not be submitted until 35 days prior to hearing. The changes to Rule 313, “Counterclaim and Cross Claim,” discuss remand to the county court if the counterclaim that caused removal to district court is dismissed.

All of the Supreme Court’s rule changes are available here.

Legal Community Mourns the Loss of Claudia Miller

Colorado’s legal community suffered a tragic loss Tuesday when Claudia Miller, a family law attorney from Lakewood, was found murdered in her office. Claudia’s practice focused on domestic relations, juvenile law, adoptions, and estate planning. She was active in the CBA’s Family Law Section and in the First Judicial District Bar Association.

The Family Law Section issued a statement on Thursday, March 7, noting “Claudia was a very able and extremely professional attorney whose clients will sadly miss her as well. Her loss is tremendous, both on a personal and a professional level. . . . Claudia was one of our best and she will be sorely missed.”

The First Judicial District Bar Association is planning a memorial service, although details have not yet been released.

It is unknown whether Claudia’s death was related to her practice. Surveillance videos captured images of a person using her credit cards; the images are available here. Anyone with information about the case is urged to contact Crime Stoppers at (720) 913-7867.

The State of Kansas Wants a Sperm Donor To Pay Child Support. Could This Happen in Colorado?

Laura Koupal PhotoKansas, 2009. William Marotta provided sperm to a lesbian couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, to enable them to have their first child together. Schreiner conceived a child, a girl, by artificial insemination done at home with Marotta’s sperm. Marotta has never had a relationship with the child.

Several years later Bauer and Schreiner broke off their relationship but both women continued to co-parent and provide for their child. Schreiner applied for state assistance for the child. Although Schreiner was listed as the sole parent on the birth certificate for the child, the Kansas Department of Children and Families required that she list a father’s name. Schreiner listed Marotta as the father and the state is now ordering Marotta to pay child support.

It is being reported that the parties had entered into a sperm donor agreement prior to the insemination. According to the reports, the donor agreement contained language stating that Marotta waived any parental rights and that Bauer and Schreiner agreed to indemnify Marotta and hold him harmless for any child support payments demanded of him by any other person or entity, public or private.

The state of Kansas is arguing that it does not recognize the agreement because the artificial insemination was not performed by a licensed physician. Kansas statutory law provides that the donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor’s wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman. Kan. Stat. Ann §23-2212(f).

This story has made national news in the last week. Colorado sperm donors and intended parents may be wondering if a similar claim could be brought in Colorado. The short answer is yes. Colorado statutory law has a similar requirement stating that the assisted reproductive procedure must be done under the supervision of a licensed physician or advanced practice nurse. Specifically, the statute states, in part: “If, under the supervision of a licensed physician or advanced practice nurse, and with the consent of her husband, a wife consents to assisted reproduction with an egg donated by another woman, to conceive a child for herself, not as a surrogate, the wife is treated in law as if she were the natural mother of a child thereby conceived. Both the husband’s and the wife’s consent must be in writing and signed by each of them. The physician or advanced practice nurse shall certify their signatures and the date of the assisted reproduction and shall file the consents with the department of public health and environment, where they shall be kept confidential and in a sealed file; however, the physician’s failure to do so does not affect the father and child relationship or the mother and child relationship.” C.R.S. §19-4-106. Colorado has the added requirement that the recipient of the sperm must be married.

However, Colorado does allow second parent adoptions. After a child is born to a sole legal parent, same-sex couples may petition the court to have the other non-biological parent added to the birth certificate. The child’s two legal parents responsible for support and care would then be the biological mother and the adoptive mother, not the sperm donor.

Laura Koupal founded Koupal Law Firm, P.C. this year. Prior to starting her own firm, Laura spent nine years in private practice representing clients in assisted reproductive technology matters, complex divorce litigation, non-traditional family formation and dissolution, adoption and estate planning matters. Laura also completed a one-year clerkship with the Honorable Christina M. Habas of Denver District Court following law school.

Laura holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Colorado and a Juris Doctor from the University of Denver. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Assisted Reproductive Technology Attorneys, a professional Member of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and RESOLVE, a Member of the Colorado Bar Association Family Law Section and the Denver Bar Association, and a Member of the American Bar Association Assisted Reproductive Technology Committee. Laura regularly writes and speaks on the issues of family law and assisted reproductive technology law. You can visit her website at www.koupallaw.com.

The opinions and views expressed by Featured Bloggers on CBA-CLE Legal Connection do not necessarily represent the opinions and views of the Colorado Bar Association, the Denver Bar Association, or CBA-CLE, and should not be construed as such.

Colorado Supreme Court: Trial Court Did Not Properly Apply UCCJEA Test When Determining It Had Jurisdiction

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In the Interest of Madrone on Tuesday, November 27, 2012.

Family Law—Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act—Initial Child-Custody Determination.

The Supreme Court held that the trial court failed to properly analyze jurisdiction under Colorado’s Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) when it exercised jurisdiction over minor child R.M. Contrary to the trial court’s ruling, the intent of the parties to remain in Colorado is not the test for whether a court has jurisdiction to determine initial custody matters. Rather, the trial court must analyze whether it has jurisdiction in this initial custody determination under Colorado’s UCCJEA as codified at CRS § 14-13-201.

Because the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard in determining jurisdiction, it erred when it held that Colorado had jurisdiction to determine the custody dispute concerning R.M. Accordingly, the Court vacated the trial court’s order assuming jurisdiction, made the rule absolute, and remanded the case for the trial court to conduct a full analysis under Colorado’s UCCJEA.

Summary and full case available here.

Mandatory E-Filing in Domestic Relations Cases in Denver Starts January 1, 2013

The Honorable Robert S. Hyatt, Chief Judge of the Second Judicial District, issued an order mandating e-filing for all district court domestic relations cases in the Second Judicial District, effective January 1, 2013. Parties filing domestic relations cases must e-file through State Judicial’s new ICCES filing system. Mandatory e-filing of civil cases in the Denver District Court has been effective since December 1, 2010.

Pro se litigants will continue to file in paper through the clerk’s office, since they do not have access to ICCES. The clerk will scan and e-file documents for pro se litigants at no charge. Attorneys who file in paper will be charged $50 per document to have the documents scanned and e-filed by the court. If a document is e-filed using any status other than “Public,” the submitting attorney must state specific authority for limiting access to the document.

Pro Bono Opportunity: Fourth Judicial District Seeks Attorneys to Represent Indigent Parties

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012, the Fourth Judicial District issued a Request for the Provision of Legal Services to Represent Indigent Parties in Child Support Contempt Problem Solving Court (Responsible Parent Program). The goal of the Responsible Parent Program is to assist a child support obligor in overcoming barriers to paying child support and to develop payment plans for support in arrears.

Attorneys selected for this program will be paid by the Judicial Department pursuant to Chief Justice Directive 04-04. Qualified attorneys are those who have been actively licensed in Colorado for five years, preferably with significant experience in domestic relations; maintain professional liability insurance; have adequate staff to support the representation; agree to represent the obligor until the contempt is resolved; are available for weekly meetings; and agree to attend training.

More information and directions for application may be found here.

Colorado State Judicial Branch Revises Several Domestic Relations Forms

This is Part 2 of 4 posts about new forms from State Judicial. Check back soon for more updates, and click here for Part 1.

The Colorado State Judicial Branch revised 23 forms and instructions in the Domestic Relations category in July. These included the flowcharts, steps, and instructions for getting a divorce (with and without children of the marriage), the Petition and Summons for Dissolution or Legal Separation, Affidavit for Decree Without Appearance of the Parties, forms regarding income assignments, and forms regarding allocation of parental responsibilities to parents and grandparents. Practitioners should begin using the new forms immediately.

Most forms are available in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) and Microsoft Word formats; many are also available as Word and Excel templates. Download the new forms from State Judicial’s individual forms pages, or below.

Domestic Relations

  • JDF 1095 – “Flowchart to Getting a Divorce or Legal Separation With No Children of this Marriage” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1096 – “Flowchart to Getting a Divorce or Legal Separation With Children of this Marriage” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1097 – “General Steps to Getting a Divorce or Legal Separation With No Children of this Marriage” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1098 – “General Steps to Getting a Divorce or Legal Separation With Children of this Marriage” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1099 – “Instructions for Filing a Dissolution of Marriage or Legal Separation if There are No Children of this Marriage or the Children are Legally Emancipated” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1100 – “Instructions for Filing a Dissolution of Marriage or Legal Separation With Children” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1325 – “Instructions to Convert Decree of Legal Separation to Decree of Dissolution of Marriage” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1418i – “Instructions to File a Motion Concerning Parenting Time Disputes” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1101 – “Petition for Dissolution of Marriage or Legal Separation” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1102 – “Summons for Dissolution of Marriage or Legal Separation” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1201 – “Affidavit for Decree Without Appearance of Parties” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1230 – “Petition/Motion for Abduction Prevention Measures” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1318 – “Order Appointing Child and Family Investigator” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1320 – “Order Appointing Legal Representative of the Child” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1327 – “Order Appointing Decision-Maker” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1329 – “Order Appointing Parenting Coordinator” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1332 – “Order for an Evaluation and Report” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1338 – “Mandatory Disclosure” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1413 – “Petition for Allocation of Parental Responsibilities” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1703 – “Petition for Allocation of Parental Responsibilities to Grandparent(s)” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1806 – “Advance Notice of Activation of an Income Assignment” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1808 – “Objection to the Activation of an Income Assignment” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 1809 – “Notice to Employer to Deduct for Health Insurance” (revised 7/12)

For a complete list of Domestic Relations forms from State Judicial, click here.