Travel, custody and relocation in Colorado

Colorado custody jurisdiction sits under C.R.S. tit. 14, art. 13 (§ 14-13-101 et seq.) – “This article shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Uniform Child-custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act’.” (C.R.S. § 14-13-101; L. 2000, entire article R&RE, effective July 1). The home-state definition is at C.R.S. § 14-13-102(7)(a). The practical point for travel is this: a child’s home state is where they lived for six consecutive months before a case started, and a temporary absence counts toward that period. A summer with grandparents in another state does not start a clock there, and it does not let the other parent file somewhere new.

Colorado has enacted the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act at C.R.S. tit. 14, art. 13.5 (§ 14-13.5-101 et seq.) – “This article may be cited as the ‘Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act’.” (C.R.S. § 14-13.5-101; L. 2007, entire article added, p. 767, § 1, effective May 14). The article runs §§ 14-13.5-101 through 14-13.5-112: short title, definitions, cooperation and communication among courts, actions for abduction prevention measures, jurisdiction, contents of petition, factors to determine risk of abduction, provisions and measures to prevent abduction, warrant to take physical custody of child, duration of abduction prevention order, and the standard uniformity and E-SIGN sections. Under C.R.S. § 14-13.5-108, the court must order measures “reasonably calculated to prevent abduction of the child,” giving due consideration to the parties’ existing custody and visitation rights, and considering the child’s age, the potential harm to the child from an abduction, the legal and practical difficulties of returning the child if abducted, and the reasons for the potential abduction “including evidence of domestic violence, domestic abuse, stalking, or child abuse or neglect.” An abduction prevention order may include: travel restrictions requiring a party traveling with the child outside a designated geographical area to give the other party “[t]he travel itinerary of the child,” “[a] list of physical addresses and telephone numbers at which the child can be reached at specified times,” and “[c]opies of all travel documents”; a prohibition on the respondent removing the child from Colorado, the United States or another geographic area without court permission or the petitioner’s written consent, removing or retaining the child in violation of a custody determination, removing the child from school or child care, or approaching the child outside a designated supervised-visitation site; a requirement that a party register the order in another state before the child may travel there; passport measures – placing the child’s name in the U.S. State Department’s child passport issuance alert program, requiring the respondent to surrender to the court or the petitioner’s attorney any U.S. or foreign passport issued in the child’s name (including one issued in the name of both parent and child), and barring the respondent from applying for a new or replacement passport or visa for the child; and, as a prerequisite to exercising parenting time, requiring the respondent to give the U.S. State Department Office of Children’s Issues and the relevant foreign consulate or embassy an authenticated copy of the order detailing passport and travel restrictions, to give the court proof of that plus “[a]n acknowledgment in a record from the relevant foreign consulate or embassy that no passport application has been made, or passport issued, on behalf of the child,” and to give the petitioner proof of registration with the U.S. embassy or other U.S. diplomatic presence in the destination country and with the Hague Convention central authority where the Convention is in force between the U.S. and that country. C.R.S. § 14-13.5-102(9) defines “[t]ravel document” as records relating to a travel itinerary, including travel tickets, passes, reservations for transportation or accommodations, but not a passport or visa.

C.R.S. § 14-10-129(1)(a)(II): “In those cases in which a party with whom the child resides a majority of the time is seeking to relocate with the child to a residence that substantially changes the geographical ties between the child and the other party, the court, in determining whether the modification of parenting time is in the best interests of the child, shall take into account all relevant factors, including those enumerated in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of this section. The party who is intending to relocate with the child to a residence that substantially changes the geographical ties between the child and the other party shall provide the other party with written notice as soon as practicable of his or her intent to relocate, the location where the party intends to reside, the reason for the relocation, and a proposed revised parenting time plan. A court hearing on any modification of parenting time due to an intent to relocate shall be given a priority on the court’s docket.” Two related provisions matter. C.R.S. § 14-10-129(1)(b)(II) switches off the ordinary endangerment standard for restricting parenting time in relocation cases – the rule in § 14-10-129(1)(b)(I) that the court “shall not restrict a parent’s parenting time rights unless it finds that the parenting time would endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impair the child’s emotional development” expressly does not apply where a majority-time parent intends to relocate in a way that substantially changes the geographical ties. And § 14-10-129(1.5), which normally bars a second substantial-modification motion within two years of the disposition of a prior one, contains an express exception where the majority-time parent is intending such a relocation.

Relocation and vacation are different questions, and orders often treat them in the same paragraph. A trip is temporary; a move changes the child’s residence. Read your own order for which one your plan actually is before you assume the relocation rule does not apply.

Colorado has no single statewide parenting order. Travel terms come from your own order and from local court rules, which vary by county or district. Read your order rather than a template.

Colorado has no statutory default possession schedule. The statutory frame is C.R.S. § 14-10-124(7): the parties “may submit a parenting plan or plans for the court’s approval that shall address both parenting time and the allocation of decision-making responsibilities,” and if none is submitted or the court does not approve one, “the court, on its own motion, shall formulate a parenting plan.” Where parenting time is contested, “the parenting plan must be as specific as possible to clearly address the needs of the family as well as the current and future needs of the aging child.” The listed provisions are permissive (“may include, but is not limited to”) and include “[a] practical schedule of parenting time for the child, including holidays and school vacations,” “[a] procedure for the exchanges of the child for parenting time, including the location of the exchanges and the party or parties responsible for the child’s transportation,” procedures for parent-to-parent and parent-to-child communication, and “[a]ny other orders in the best interests of the child.” Nothing in the statute sets a default number of vacation weeks, an advance-notice period for vacation travel, an itinerary requirement, an out-of-state or out-of-country travel restriction, or a passport rule. The Colorado Judicial Department publishes statewide JDF self-help forms including a parenting plan form, but we could not retrieve that form from coloradojudicial.gov when we checked, because the court’s forms search did not link to it. Its travel language is not summarized here, and we do not say whether a statewide form addresses travel.

Yes, by statute, in the Colorado Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act. C.R.S. § 14-13.5-108(3)(d) authorizes, “[w]ith regard to the child’s passport”: “(I) A direction that the petitioner place the child’s name in the United States department of state’s child passport issuance alert program; (II) A requirement that the respondent surrender to the court or the petitioner’s attorney any United States or foreign passport issued in the child’s name, including a passport issued in the name of both the parent and the child; and (III) A prohibition upon the respondent from applying on behalf of the child for a new or replacement passport or visa.” C.R.S. § 14-13.5-108(3)(e) goes further than most states’ versions by allowing the court to require, as a prerequisite to exercising parenting time, that the respondent obtain and file “[a]n acknowledgment in a record from the relevant foreign consulate or embassy that no passport application has been made, or passport issued, on behalf of the child.” All of this is available only through a UCAPA petition and a risk finding; Colorado has no default rule about which parent holds the passport in an ordinary case.

• Custody jurisdiction statute: https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2024-title-14.pdf

Sources we could not reach when this page was built, recorded so you know what is missing rather than assuming it was checked: The Colorado Judicial Department’s statewide parenting plan JDF form, which we could not retrieve: coloradojudicial.gov’s self-help forms search returns paginated pages with no direct link to it, /self-help-forms and /self-help/forms return 404 for direct paths, and courts.state.co.us/forms/pdf/JDF1113.pdf returns an HTML page rather than the PDF.

Every fact above is taken from the source linked beside it. Where a figure could not be confirmed from an official source, this page says so rather than printing a plausible number. Found an error? Tell us — it goes on the corrections page with the date.