Research & Case Law

Under Colorado statute, child support can be retroactive to the date of the parent’s separation, the date of the filing of the petition, or the date of service on the responding parent, whichever date is later. The final decree in this divorce case ordered child support retroactive to February 2019, the date of the parent’s separation. The father appealed this provision arguing this date didn’t comply with the statutory requirements.

When projecting income for child support, evidence must support the projection. In this divorce action, the father was a dentist. To determine his income for child support, the district court averaged his income from 2017, 2018, and for six months of 2020. The parents’ 2019 tax return was not complete at the time of trial. Using the average income, the district court set support. The mother appealed arguing the district court erred both the method and calculation of the father’s income.

A property division can be re-opened upon the discovery of an undisclosed asset. Child support will be recalculated to reflect any change in a parent’s income from the new asset. In this post-divorce action, the mother petitioned to reopen the parents’ original property division. She found an undisclosed asset, the father’s ownership of a business. The magistrate agreed, allocated the asset, and modified the child support order based on additional income from the business. The father appealed, first to the district court, which affirmed, and then to the appellate court.

The modification of a child support order requires an unforeseen change of circumstances. The requesting parent has the burden of proof. The father filed to modify the alimony and child support provisions of the divorce decree. He alleged his income from his ophthalmology practice had decreased substantially. He filed for bankruptcy and then the pandemic prevented him from seeing patients. He had been charged with driving under the influence and was subject to an agreement with the licensing board which also limited his hours of practice. The parent’s final minor child was living with the father at the time of the action. In the final order, the chancery court denied to modification finding the father’s choice to drink meant his claimed change in circumstances didn’t quality as unforeseen. He was found in contempt for failure to pay. The father appealed.