travel expenses colorado

• Last Updated On
• August 21, 2023

Colorado Travel Cost: A Budget-Friendly Guide for Your Next Adventure

Thinking about a family getaway to Colorado, but feeling uncertain about the travel expenses?

You’ve got plenty of company.

It’s not unusual for first-timers or those who don’t visit often to ponder over potential costs.

But there’s no need to fret.

In this article, we’ll break down your Colorado travel cost, from where you’ll rest your head at night, to the food you’ll enjoy, to how you’ll get around, and the sights you’ll see.

Are you ready to dive deeper?

Together, we’ll navigate through practical tips and guidance to ensure your adventure is as smooth and delightful as can be.

Rest assured, my own jaunts around the Centennial State have equipped me well to guide you on this journey.

Key Takeaways

• A clear understanding of Colorado travel expenses will make planning your trip easier and more enjoyable
• This article covers crucial aspects such as accommodation, dining, transportation, and attractions
• Useful tips and guidance will help first-time or infrequent visitors have a memorable and worry-free experience in Colorado

Colorado Travel Cost: Getting There

Flying into Colorado?

You’re most likely to land at Denver International Airport (DIA) or Colorado Springs Airport.

Denver might be a bit more wallet-friendly, with better average prices for flight tickets.

Wondering which airlines you can take?

A variety of options are at your disposal, including popular carriers like United, Southwest, and American Airlines.

When planning your flight, keep in mind that landing and departing times can impact your overall travel experience.

If you’re flying with a family, trying to book a flight that works well for everyone – especially younger kiddos – will help make your journey more enjoyable.

Once you arrive in Colorado, getting around is key to making the most of your travels, so renting a car is definitely an option worth considering.

Both DIA and Colorado Springs Airport offer car rental services to jumpstart your family’s adventure.

If you’re budget-conscious (who isn’t?), checking out different car rental agencies and comparing prices is the way to go.

Don’t forget to reserve your car early to increase the likelihood of snagging a good deal.

Moreover, consider the size of your family, the places you’re planning to visit, and the amount of luggage you’ll have.

Will a compact car do, or do you need a minivan or SUV for a more comfortable ride?

Accommodation

Hotels and hostels.

Looking for the best family hotels in Colorado ?

You’re in luck, as there are plenty of options to choose from.

Whether you prefer a bustling city like Colorado Springs with a 3-star hotel from $92 or the beautiful mountain resort town of Aspen starting at $193 for a 3-star hotel, Colorado has something for every family’s taste and budget.

Considering hostels instead?

While Colorado may not have a plethora of hostels, you can still find some budget-friendly options.

Remember that location is key, as you may want to be close to the attractions and activities your family enjoys, whether it’s hiking, skiing, or exploring the city.

Do you and your family love the great outdoors?

Camping in Colorado is a fantastic way to save on accommodation costs and enjoy the state’s natural beauty.

With numerous state parks, national forests, and wilderness areas to choose from, you can find the perfect camping spot for your family.

Just don’t forget to factor in any parking fees, permit costs, or campsite reservation fees to your total trip expenditure.

Vacation Rentals

Vacation rentals can be a cozy and cost-effective alternative to traditional hotels.

With a vacation rental, you can enjoy the comforts of home while exploring Colorado.

You can find rentals in popular locations like Breckenridge or Steamboat Springs, with prices varying depending on where you choose to stay.

Keep in mind, though, that popular booking sites like Airbnb may add fees and taxes to your rental costs.

Food and Dining

Restaurants and cafes.

Visiting Colorado, you may wonder what delightful food and dining options await you and your family.

No worries, friend.

Colorado offers a variety of restaurants and cafes that cater to different tastes, preferences, and budgets.

In Denver, you can expect to spend around $218 per day on your vacation.

This includes meals, transportation, and entertainment.

Meanwhile, in Colorado Springs, plan to allocate about $155 per day for your vacation expenses.

Don’t forget to sample the local coffee shops too.

Colorado has a thriving café scene, perfect for a quick pick-me-up or a leisurely afternoon with a good book.

Whether you’re craving a creamy cappuccino, a bold espresso, or a healthy smoothie, you’ll find plenty of options.

Local Specialties

Colorado’s culinary scene offers a wide range of local specialties for you and your family to enjoy.

One must-try dish is the green chile, which is quintessentially Colorado.

Head over to El Taco de Mexico for some of the best green chile in the state – it’s been served up authentically since 1985.

Another local favorite to sample is the Colorado-style pizza.

This unique pizza has a thick, honey-sweetened crust and loaded toppings that include a delicious blend of meats, vegetables, and cheeses.

Trust me, your taste buds will thank you.

Did you know Colorado is also known for its craft beer?

With hundreds of breweries scattered across the state, you’re sure to find the perfect brew while exploring the beautiful landscapes.

Transportation

So, you’re planning a family trip to Colorado and wondering about the transportation costs.

In this section, we’ll briefly cover some of the popular options, including public transit, ride-sharing, and taxis. Let’s dive in.

Public Transit Options

Colorado offers a variety of public transportation services to help you navigate your way around.

For instance, if you’re flying into Denver International Airport, you can easily catch a shuttle to your ski resort destination.

Besides shuttles, you can also utilize buses and trains, depending on your requirements.

If you’re spending time in Denver, the Regional Transportation District (RTD) offers affordable fares that will help you save money. Here’s a quick breakdown of RTD fares:

• 3-Hour Pass: $6.00 (Adult) / $3.00 (Discount) / $1.80 (Youth)

Discount rates apply to seniors, riders with disabilities, and Medicare recipients.

Youth rates are for ages 6-19.

Ride Sharing and Taxis

For a more personalized transportation experience, consider ride-sharing services like Uber or Lyft.

They’re widely available throughout Colorado and provide a convenient way to get from point A to point B.

However, keep in mind that fares can vary based on factors such as time of day, ride demand, and distance.

Taxis are another option for getting around, particularly in urban areas like Denver.

They are accessible and function on a meter-based fare system.

Though not as budget-friendly as public transit, taxis offer a bit more privacy and flexibility in your travel plans.

Attractions

Colorado is a breathtaking destination filled with both natural and cultural wonders.

This article will focus on some of the best places to visit in Colorado , including where to immerse yourself in the majestic landscapes, as well as where to learn about the state’s unique history.

Natural Wonders

Rocky mountain national park.

One of the top attractions for families is Rocky Mountain National Park .

Located just a few hours from Denver, this park boasts sky-high peaks, pristine alpine lakes, and abundant wildlife.

With over 300 miles of hiking trails for all skill levels, you’ll find stunning viewpoints and memorable picnic spots.

Just remember to pack your camera and a sense of adventure.

Garden of the Gods

Another must-see natural wonder is the Garden of the Gods.

This National Natural Landmark features towering red rock formations that contrast beautifully with the surrounding greenery.

The park covers 1,367 acres and offers various activities, such as hiking, rock climbing, and guided tours.

It’s an awe-inspiring environment that even the little ones will appreciate.

Cultural and Historical Sites

Denver art museum.

Don’t forget to visit the Denver Art Museum , which displays thousands of artworks from various eras and cultures in an architecturally striking environment.

Take your time while wandering through the museum, and allow each piece to offer inspiration and spark the imaginations of both adults and children alike.

Mesa Verde National Park

For a bit of history, Mesa Verde National Park should be on your list.

This UNESCO World Heritage site is home to some of the best-preserved Ancestral Puebloan archaeological sites in the United States.

With more than 4,000 identified sites, including cliff dwellings and mesa-top villages, Mesa Verde is a testament to the ingenuity and adaptability of these ancient people.

Budgeting Your Trip

When planning your family trip to Colorado, it’s important to take into consideration the costs, taxes, and fees associated with traveling.

You’ll also want to weigh the options for travel insurance. Not to worry, we’ll guide you through it all.

Taxes and Fees

While exploring beautiful Colorado, you’ll need to account for additional expenses like taxes and fees.

Lodging prices can include property taxes, and if you opt for renting a car, there might be airport taxes to consider.

Car rentals often start around $60 to $70 per day from many Coloradan airports, so it’s a good idea to look into off-site rentals, which can significantly reduce costs.

Now, what about daily living expenses?

Food, sightseeing, and travel can come in between $49 to $100 per day for one person.

So, for a week-long family trip, it might cost you between $1,285 and $2,618.

Travel Insurance

As a savvy traveler, you might wonder about travel insurance costs when planning your Colorado adventure.

While it’s true that insurance policies differ in price and coverage, it’s definitely worth checking out to protect your family and your investment in your trip.

For instance, travel insurance can cover unexpected events like trip cancellations, emergency medical expenses, or even lost or stolen valuables.

When it comes to choosing a policy, take your time and compare a few options.

Remember that the cheapest option isn’t necessarily the best.

Safety and Emergencies

Weather precautions.

In Colorado, you won’t have to worry about hurricanes, but it’s essential to keep some other weather-related precautions in mind when you’re visiting with your family.

Rapid weather changes are common, so always pack layers and check the forecast frequently.

During the winter months, heavy snowfall can impact road conditions, making it crucial to ensure your vehicle is equipped for snowy and icy conditions.

Here are some quick tips for handling Colorado’s weather:

• Keep an eye on the forecast and be prepared for sudden changes, such as rain or snow.
• If you’re venturing into the mountains, bring warm layers as temperatures can drop quickly at higher elevations.
• In the summer, pack sunscreen and hats to protect yourself from the strong Colorado sun.

Emergency Contacts

When traveling with your family in Colorado, knowing who to call in case of an emergency is important.

Here’s a handy table with some of your go-to emergency contacts for various situations:

Parting Words

So, you’re planning a family trip to Colorado?

That’s fantastic.

You’ll be thrilled to know that the Colorado travel cost is manageable for most budgets, ranging from $1,285 to $2,618 per week for one person.

Keep in mind, this estimate includes daily expenses like food, accommodation, and sightseeing.

When it comes to accommodations, you’ll find options from cozy 2 or 3-star hotel rooms for $88 to $112 per night to comfortable 1-bed vacation rentals priced at $140 to $171 per night.

The key is to focus on your priorities and find a balance between comfort and cost.

Don’t forget to set aside some dough for memorable experiences and activities .

Allocate a budget for gas, a rental car, and any entry fees.

Remember, the beauty of Colorado lies in its majestic landscapes and countless outdoor adventures.

You’re in for an unforgettable experience, and you can’t put a price on those family memories.

Related: What to Buy in Colorado

Frequently Asked Questions

How much does a colorado vacation typically cost.

A Colorado vacation cost can greatly vary depending on your travel preferences. However, on average, you can expect to spend around $200 to $300 per day for accommodations, food, and activities.

What Is The Best Time Of Year To Visit Colorado On A Budget?

The best time of year to visit Colorado on a budget is during the shoulder seasons of spring and fall. During these times, you’ll find discounted rates on accommodations and fewer crowds at popular tourist spots.

What’s The Average Cost Of A Denver Trip?

The average cost of a Denver trip can range from $150 to $250 per day. This includes accommodations, meals, and sightseeing activities. Keep in mind that your budget might be higher or lower depending on your itinerary and preferences.

How Can I Save Money On A Colorado Trip?

To save money on your Colorado trip, try traveling during weekdays when the roads are clearer and hotel rates are lower. Also, consider visiting during the shoulder seasons and look for deals on vacation packages. Plan ahead and prioritize free or affordable activities like hiking and exploring parks.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Explore sell to government
• Ways you can sell to government
• How to access contract opportunities
• Conduct market research
• Register your business
• Certify as a small business
• Become a schedule holder
• Market your business
• Research active solicitations
• Respond to a solicitation
• What to expect during the award process
• Comply with contractual requirements
• Handle contract modifications
• Monitor past performance evaluations
• Explore real estate
• 3D-4D building information modeling
• Art in architecture | Fine arts
• Computer-aided design standards
• Commissioning
• Design excellence
• Engineering
• Project management information system
• Spatial data management
• Facilities operations
• Smart buildings
• Tenant services
• Utility services
• Water quality management
• Explore historic buildings
• Heritage tourism
• Historic preservation policy, tools and resources
• Historic building stewardship
• Videos, pictures, posters and more
• NEPA implementation
• Courthouse program
• Land ports of entry
• Prospectus library
• Regional buildings
• Renting property
• Visiting public buildings
• Real property disposal
• Reimbursable services (RWA)
• Rental policy and procedures
• Site selection and relocation
• For businesses seeking opportunities
• For federal customers
• For workers in federal buildings
• Explore policy and regulations
• Acquisition management policy
• Aviation management policy
• Information technology policy
• Real property management policy
• Relocation management policy
• Travel management policy
• Vehicle management policy
• Federal acquisition regulations
• Federal management regulations
• Federal travel regulations
• GSA acquisition manual
• Managing the federal rulemaking process
• Explore small business
• Explore business models
• Research the federal market
• Forecast of contracting opportunities
• Events and contacts
• Explore travel
• Per diem rates
• Transportation (airfare rates, POV rates, etc.)
• State tax exemption
• Travel charge card
• Conferences and meetings
• E-gov travel service (ETS)
• Travel category schedule
• Federal travel regulation
• Travel policy
• Explore technology
• Cloud computing services
• Cybersecurity products and services
• Data center services
• Hardware products and services
• Professional IT services
• Software products and services
• Telecommunications and network services
• Work with small businesses
• Governmentwide acquisition contracts
• MAS information technology
• Software purchase agreements
• Cybersecurity
• Digital strategy
• Emerging citizen technology
• Federal identity, credentials, and access management
• Mobile government
• Technology modernization fund
• Explore about us
• Annual reports
• Mission and strategic goals
• Role in presidential transitions
• Get an internship
• Launch your career
• Elevate your professional career
• Discover special hiring paths
• Events and training
• Agency blog
• Congressional testimony
• GSA does that podcast
• News releases
• Leadership directory
• Staff directory
• Office of the administrator
• Federal Acquisition Service
• Public Buildings Service
• Staff offices
• Board of Contract Appeals
• Office of Inspector General
• Region 1 | New England
• Region 2 | Northeast and Caribbean
• Region 3 | Mid-Atlantic
• Region 4 | Southeast Sunbelt
• Region 5 | Great Lakes
• Region 6 | Heartland
• Region 7 | Greater Southwest
• Region 8 | Rocky Mountain
• Region 9 | Pacific Rim
• Region 10 | Northwest/Arctic
• Region 11 | National Capital Region
• Per Diem Lookup

FY 2024 Per Diem Rates for Colorado

Daily lodging rates (excluding taxes) | october 2023 - september 2024.

Cities not appearing below may be located within a county for which rates are listed. To determine the county a destination is located in, visit the Census Geocoder .

Meals & Incidentals (M&IE) rates and breakdown Footnotes

Use this table to find the following information for federal employee travel:

Breakfast, lunch, dinner, incidentals - Separate amounts for meals and incidentals. M&IE Total = Breakfast + Lunch + Dinner + Incidentals. Sometimes meal amounts must be deducted from trip voucher. See More Information

First & last day of travel - amount received on the first and last day of travel and equals 75% of total M&IE.

• I'm interested in:

Primary Destination

Traveler reimbursement is based on the location of the work activities and not the accommodations, unless lodging is not available at the work activity, then the agency may authorize the rate where lodging is obtained.

Unless otherwise specified, the per diem locality is defined as "all locations within, or entirely surrounded by, the corporate limits of the key city, including independent entities located within those boundaries."

Per diem localities with county definitions shall include "all locations within, or entirely surrounded by, the corporate limits of the key city as well as the boundaries of the listed counties, including independent entities located within the boundaries of the key city and the listed counties (unless otherwise listed separately)."

When a military installation or Government-related facility (whether or not specifically named) is located partially within more than one city or county boundary, the applicable per diem rate for the entire installation or facility is the higher of the rates which apply to the cities and/or counties, even though part(s) of such activities may be located outside the defined per diem locality.

Meals & Incidentals

The separate amounts for breakfast, lunch and dinner listed in the chart are provided should you need to deduct any of those meals from your trip voucher. For example, if your trip includes meals that are already paid for by the government (such as through a registration fee for a conference), you will need to deduct those meals from your voucher. Refer to Section 301-11.18 of the Federal Travel Regulation for specific guidance on deducting these amounts from your per diem reimbursement claims for meals furnished to you by the government. Other organizations may have different rules that apply for their employees; please check with your organization for more assistance.

First & Last Day of Travel

This column lists the amount federal employees receive for the first and last calendar day of travel. The first and last calendar day of travel is calculated at 75 percent.

Additional per diem topics

• Meals & Incidental Expenses breakdown (M&IE)
• State tax exemption forms
• Factors influencing lodging rates
• Per diem highlights
• Fire safe hotels
• Have a per diem question?
• Downloadable per diem files

Need more information?

• Rates for Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. territories and possessions (set by DoD)
• Rates in foreign countries (set by State Dept.)

Related topics

• Travel resources
• E-Gov Travel
• POV mileage reimbursement rates

PER DIEM LOOK-UP

1 choose a location.

Error, The Per Diem API is not responding. Please try again later.

No results could be found for the location you've entered.

Rates for Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. Territories and Possessions are set by the Department of Defense .

Rates for foreign countries are set by the State Department .

2 Choose a date

Rates are available between 10/1/2021 and 09/30/2024.

The End Date of your trip can not occur before the Start Date.

When a military installation or Government - related facility(whether or not specifically named) is located partially within more than one city or county boundary, the applicable per diem rate for the entire installation or facility is the higher of the rates which apply to the cities and / or counties, even though part(s) of such activities may be located outside the defined per diem locality.

Cost of a Trip to Colorado Springs, CO, US & the Cheapest Time to Visit Colorado Springs

The average price of a 7-day trip to Colorado Springs is $1,669 for a solo traveler, $2,998 for a couple, and $5,620 for a family of 4 . Colorado Springs hotels range from $59 to $300 per night with an average of $89, while most vacation rentals will cost $140 to $440 per night for the entire home. Average worldwide flight costs to City of Colorado Springs Municipal Airport ( COS ) are between $708 and $990 per person for economy flights and $2,222 to $3,107 for first class. Depending on activities, we recommend budgeting $51 to $109 per person per day for transportation and enjoying local restaurants.

See below for average , budget , and luxury trip costs. You can also look up flight costs from your airport for more tailored flight pricing.

The Cheapest Times to Visit Colorado Springs, CO, US

On average, these will be the cheapest dates to fly to COS and stay in a Colorado Springs hotel:

• January 8th to March 4th
• April 16th to May 6th
• August 13th to November 18th

The absolute cheapest time to take a vacation in Colorado Springs is usually mid to late September .

Average Colorado Springs Trip Costs

Average solo traveler.

The average cost for one person to visit Colorado Springs for a week is $1,286-$2,404 ($184-$343 per day)

Food, Travel, and Sightseeing : $51 to $109 per day for one person’s daily expenses

Flights : $467 to $891 for economy

Lodging : $77 to $125 per night for one 2 or 3-star hotel room

or $93 to $113 per night for a 1-bed vacation rental

Average Couple’s Trip

The average cost for a couple to visit Colorado Springs for a week is $2,592-$4,256 ($370-$608 per day)

Food, Travel, and Sightseeing : $102 to $218 per day for two people’s daily expenses

Flights : $934 to $1,782 for economy

Average Family Vacation

The average cost for 4 people to visit Colorado Springs for a week is $4,190-$8,116 ($599-$1,159 per day)

Food, Travel, and Sightseeing : $204 to $436 per day for four people’s daily expenses

Flights : $1,868 to $3,564 for economy

Lodging : $154 to $250 per night for two 2 or 3-star hotel rooms

or $149 to $158 per night for a 2-bed vacation rental

Traveling Cheap to Colorado Springs

How cheap can you make a vacation to Colorado Springs? The cheapest trip to Colorado Springs is about $133 per person per day for travelers willing to take standby flights, deal with inconvenience, and otherwise limit travel expenses. About 1% of rentals are available in the $0 to $100 range for an entire place, and vacation rentals can be booked for as low as $80 per night. These inexpensive rentals must be booked as early as possible and may not be in the most desirable areas. 1-star hotels are more likely to be available, with rooms starting at around $52.

Even cheaper trips are possible depending on where you live and whether you can drive. Check the cheapest times to fly for more saving ideas.

Budget Solo Traveler

The lowest cost for one person to visit Colorado Springs for a week is $933-$1,926 ($133-$275 per day)

Food, Travel, and Sightseeing : $22 to $45 per day for one person’s daily expenses

Lodging : $52 to $59 per night for one 1-star hotel room

or $80 to $120 per night for a 1-bed vacation rental

Budget Couple’s Trip

The lowest cost for a couple to visit Colorado Springs for a week is $1,554-$3,132 ($222-$447 per day)

Food, Travel, and Sightseeing : $44 to $90 per day for two people’s daily expenses

Budget Family Vacation

The lowest cost for 4 people to visit Colorado Springs for a week is $3,108-$5,904 ($444-$843 per day)

Food, Travel, and Sightseeing : $88 to $180 per day for four people’s daily expenses

Lodging : $104 to $118 per night for two 1-star hotel rooms

or $112 to $180 per night for a 2-bed vacation rental

Overall it is harder to travel to Colorado Springs cheaply.

The Cost of a Luxury Colorado Springs Trip

There is no true ceiling on the cost of a luxury trip, so our estimates are based on what most people do in Colorado Springs.

Luxury Solo Traveler

The high-end price for one person to visit Colorado Springs for a week is $2,357-$9,677 ($337-$1,382 per day)

Food, Travel, and Sightseeing : $92 to $218 per day for one person’s daily expenses

Flights : $939 to $2,343 for first class

Lodging : $129 to $300 per night for one 4 or 5-star hotel room

or $440 to $968 per night for a preferred vacation rental

Luxury Couple’s Trip

The high-end price for a couple to visit Colorado Springs for a week is $3,940-$13,546 ($563-$1,935 per day)

Food, Travel, and Sightseeing : $184 to $436 per day for two people’s daily expenses

Flights : $1,878 to $4,686 for first class

Luxury Family Vacation

The high-end price for 4 people to visit Colorado Springs for a week is $7,880-$24,188 ($1,126-$3,455 per day)

Food, Travel, and Sightseeing : $368 to $872 per day for four people’s daily expenses

Flights : $3,756 to $9,372 for first class

Lodging : $258 to $600 per night for two 4 or 5-star hotel rooms

or $704 to $1,452 per night for a preferred vacation rental

Colorado Springs Hotel Prices

The cost of staying in Colorado Springs is higher than the average city. On average hotels are less expensive than vacation rentals. Luxury vacation rentals are more expensive in Colorado Springs due to very high property costs. The graphs below show how much cost can vary depending on the type of experience you’re looking for.

Colorado Springs Lodging Cost by Star Status

The average price for the class of hotel is on the (y) axis. The hotel class (out of 5 stars) is on the (x) axis.

Prices are based on Colorado Springs hotel averages and may not reflect current prices. In some cases, we extrapolate prices to estimate costs, and hotels with your desired star rating may not be available.

Vacation Rental Prices

The percent of vacation rentals in the price range is on the left (y) axis. Price range is on the bottom (x) axis.

There are a healthy amount of vacation rentals serving all budgets in Colorado Springs.

Flight Costs to Colorado Springs

Averaging flights around the world, prices go from a high of $990 average in late July to a low of $708 in mid to late September. Median flight price is $641. These prices are based on millions of flights. For Colorado Springs our data includes 526 originating airports, and 104 airlines. The area has average variance in price compared with other locations. Flying to Colorado Springs from an airport like Schoenefeld ( SXF ) in Berlin (Germany) for an average $7,458 trip fare will obviously cost a lot more than from an airport like Cortez Municipal ( CEZ ) in Cortez, CO (the United States) at an average of just $225.

Average Flight Cost by Season

Average flight cost by day of week.

The cheapest day to fly in is typically Tuesday, and the cheapest day to fly back is usually Tuesday. Click here to see data for the cost of flights from your airport. In Colorado Springs, the difference between the cheapest and the most expensive week is about $282, so you can easily save about 40% simply by using our free flight guides and booking in advance.

Daily Expenses Budget

Daily vacation expenses vary more based on what you’re interested in doing. A fine dining restaurant with drinks around Colorado Springs can easily cost $340 per person or more, while a standard nice meal might be about $22 per person. Private tours can cost $673 per day, but self-guided tours to see the outdoor sights can be free. Costs vary wildly, so recommendations are made based on the cost of living and averages we see for this type of vacation.

Other Colorado Springs Guides

Travel costs nearby.

• Downtown Colorado Springs, CO, US
• Garden of Gods, the United States
• Manitou Springs, CO, US
• Cascade, CO, US
• Green Mountain Falls, CO, US
• Fountain, CO, US
• Monument, CO, US
• Woodland Park, CO, US
• Castlewood Canyon State Park, the United States
• Castle Rock, CO, US

Travel Costs in Popular Places

• Hoi An, Vietnam
• Myrtle Beach, SC, US
• Gyeongju, South Korea

An official website of the United States Government

• Kreyòl ayisyen
• Search Toggle search Search Include Historical Content - Any - No Include Historical Content - Any - No Search
• Menu Toggle menu
• INFORMATION FOR…
• Individuals
• Business & Self Employed
• Charities and Nonprofits
• International Taxpayers
• Federal State and Local Governments
• Indian Tribal Governments
• Tax Exempt Bonds
• FILING FOR INDIVIDUALS
• How to File
• When to File
• Where to File
• Update Your Information
• Get Your Tax Record
• Apply for an Employer ID Number (EIN)
• Check Your Amended Return Status
• Get an Identity Protection PIN (IP PIN)
• File Your Taxes for Free
• Bank Account (Direct Pay)
• Payment Plan (Installment Agreement)
• Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS)
• Your Online Account
• Tax Withholding Estimator
• Estimated Taxes
• Where's My Refund
• What to Expect
• Direct Deposit
• Reduced Refunds
• Amend Return

Credits & Deductions

• INFORMATION FOR...
• Businesses & Self-Employed
• Earned Income Credit (EITC)
• Child Tax Credit
• Clean Energy and Vehicle Credits
• Standard Deduction
• Retirement Plans

Forms & Instructions

• POPULAR FORMS & INSTRUCTIONS
• Form 1040 Instructions
• Form 4506-T
• POPULAR FOR TAX PROS
• Form 1040-X
• Circular 230

Understanding business travel deductions

More in news.

• Topics in the News
• News Releases
• Multimedia Center
• Tax Relief in Disaster Situations
• Inflation Reduction Act
• Taxpayer First Act
• Tax Scams/Consumer Alerts
• The Tax Gap
• Fact Sheets
• IRS Tax Tips
• e-News Subscriptions
• IRS Guidance
• Media Contacts
• IRS Statements and Announcements

IRS Tax Tip 2023-15, February 7, 2023

Whether someone travels for work once a year or once a month, figuring out travel expense tax write-offs might seem confusing. The IRS has information to help all business travelers properly claim these valuable deductions.

Here are some tax details all business travelers should know

Business travel deductions are available when employees must travel away from their  tax home  or  main place of work  for business reasons. A taxpayer is traveling away from home if they are away for longer than an ordinary day's work and they need to sleep to meet the demands of their work while away.

Travel expenses  must be ordinary and necessary. They can't be lavish, extravagant or for personal purposes.

Employers can deduct travel expenses paid or incurred during a  temporary work assignment  if the assignment length does not exceed one year.

Travel expenses for  conventions  are deductible if attendance benefits the business. There are special rules for conventions held  outside North America .

Deductible travel expenses include:

• Travel by airplane, train, bus or car between your home and your business destination.
• Fares for taxis or other types of transportation between an airport or train station and a hotel, or from a hotel to a work location.
• Shipping of baggage and sample or display material between regular and temporary work locations.
• Using a personally owned car for business.
• Lodging and  meals .
• Dry cleaning and laundry.
• Business calls and communication.
• Tips paid for services related to any of these expenses.
• Other similar ordinary and necessary expenses related to the business travel.

Self-employed individuals or farmers with travel deductions

• Those who are self-employed can deduct travel expenses on  Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business (Sole Proprietorship) .
• Farmers can use  Schedule F (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Farming .

Travel deductions for the National Guard or military reserves

National Guard or military reserve servicemembers can claim a deduction for unreimbursed travel expenses paid during the  performance of their duty .

Recordkeeping

Well-organized records  make it easier to prepare a tax return. Keep records such as receipts, canceled checks and other documents that support a deduction.

Subscribe to IRS Tax Tips

•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  Linkedin

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

2021 Colorado Code Title 14 - Domestic Matters Article 10 - Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act § 14-10-115. Child Support Guidelines - Purpose - Determination of Income - Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations - Adjustments to Basic Child Support - Additional Guidelines - Child Support Commission - Definitions

• To establish as state policy an adequate standard of support for children, subject to the ability of parents to pay;
• To make awards more equitable by ensuring more consistent treatment of persons in similar circumstances; and
• To improve the efficiency of the court process by promoting settlements and giving courts and the parties guidance in establishing levels of awards.
• Calculate child support based upon the parents' combined adjusted gross income estimated to have been allocated to the child if the parents and children were living in an intact household;
• Adjust the child support based upon the needs of the children for extraordinary medical expenses and work-related child care costs; and
• Allocate the amount of child support to be paid by each parent based upon physical care arrangements.
• This section shall apply to all child support obligations, established or modified, as a part of any proceeding, including, but not limited to, articles 5, 6, and 10 of this title and articles 4 and 6 of title 19, C.R.S., regardless of when filed.
• In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, maintenance, or child support, the court may order either or both parents owing a duty of support to a child of the marriage to pay an amount reasonable or necessary for the child's support and may order an amount determined to be reasonable under the circumstances for a time period that occurred after the date of the parties' physical separation or the filing of the petition or service upon the respondent, whichever date is latest, and prior to the entry of the support order, without regard to marital misconduct.
• The financial resources of the child;
• The financial resources of the custodial parent;
• The standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved;
• The physical and emotional condition of the child and his or her educational needs; and
• The financial resources and needs of the noncustodial parent.
• “Adjusted gross income” means gross income, as specified in subsection (5) of this section, less preexisting child support obligations and less alimony or maintenance actually paid by a parent, as described in subsection (3)(a)(II) of this section. (a) (I) “Adjusted gross income” means gross income, as specified in subsection (5) of this section, less preexisting child support obligations and less alimony or maintenance actually paid by a parent, as described in subsection (3)(a)(II) of this section.
• For purposes of this subsection (3)(a), if the alimony or maintenance actually paid by a parent is deductible for federal income tax purposes by that parent, then the actual amount of alimony or maintenance paid by that parent must be deducted from that parent's gross income. If the alimony or maintenance actually paid by a parent is not deductible for federal income tax purposes by that parent, then the amount of alimony or maintenance deducted from that parent's gross income is the amount of alimony or maintenance actually paid by that parent multiplied by 1.25.
• “Combined gross income” means the combined monthly adjusted gross incomes of both parents.

(c.5) “Mandatory school fees” means fees charged by a school or school district, including a charter school, for a child attending public primary or secondary school for activities that are directly related to the educational mission of the school, including but not limited to laboratory fees; book or educational material fees; school computer or automation-related fees, whether paid to the school directly or purchased by a parent; testing fees; and supply or material fees paid to the school. “Mandatory school fees” does not include uniforms, meals, or extracurricular activity fees.

• “Number of children due support”, as used in the schedule of basic child support obligations specified in subsection (7) of this section, means children for whom the parents share joint legal responsibility and for whom support is being sought.
• “Other children” means children who are not the subject of the child support determination at issue.
• “Postsecondary education” includes college and career and technical education programs.
• “Postsecondary education support” means support for the following expenses associated with attending a college, university, or career and technical education program: Tuition, books, and fees.
• “Shared physical care”, for the purposes of the child support guidelines and schedule of basic child support obligations specified in this section, and as further specified in paragraph (b) of subsection (8) of this section, means that each parent keeps the children overnight for more than ninety-two overnights each year and that both parents contribute to the expenses of the children in addition to the payment of child support.
• “Split physical care”, for the purposes of the child support guidelines and schedule of basic child support obligations specified in this section, and as further specified in paragraph (c) of subsection (8) of this section, means that each parent has physical care of at least one of the children by means of that child or children residing with that parent the majority of the time.
• The child support guidelines shall be used with standardized child support guideline forms to be issued by the judicial department. The judicial department is responsible for promulgating and updating the Colorado child support guideline forms, schedules, worksheets, and instructions.
• All child support orders entered pursuant to this article shall provide the names and dates of birth of the parties and of the children who are the subject of the order and the parties' residential and mailing addresses. The social security numbers of the parties and children shall be collected pursuant to section 14-14-113 and section 26-13-127, C.R.S.
• Income from salaries;
• Wages, including tips declared by the individual for purposes of reporting to the federal internal revenue service or tips imputed to bring the employee's gross earnings to the minimum wage for the number of hours worked, whichever is greater;
• Commissions;
• Payments received as an independent contractor for labor or services, which payments must be considered income from self-employment;
• Severance pay;
• Pensions and retirement benefits, including but not limited to those paid pursuant to articles 51, 54, 54.5, and 54.6 of title 24, C.R.S., and article 30 of title 31, C.R.S.;
• Monetary prizes, excluding lottery winnings not required by the rules of the Colorado lottery commission to be paid only at the lottery office;

(I.5) For purposes of subsection (5)(a)(I)(Y) of this section, if the alimony or maintenance actually received by a parent is taxable income to that parent for federal income tax purposes, then the actual amount of alimony or maintenance received is included in that parent's gross income. If the alimony or maintenance actually received by a parent is not taxable income to that parent for federal income tax purposes, then the amount of alimony or maintenance that is included in that parent's gross income is the amount of alimony or maintenance received by that parent multiplied by 1.25.

• Child support payments received;
• Benefits received from means-tested public assistance programs, including but not limited to assistance provided under the Colorado works program, as described in part 7 of article 2 of title 26, C.R.S., supplemental security income, food stamps, and general assistance;
• Income from additional jobs that result in the employment of the obligor more than forty hours per week or more than what would otherwise be considered to be full-time employment;
• Social security benefits received by the minor children, or on behalf of the minor children, as a result of the death or disability of a stepparent are not to be included as income for the minor children for the determination of child support; and
• Earnings or gains on a retirement account, including an IRA, which earnings or gains must not be included as income unless or until a parent takes a distribution from the account. If a distribution from a retirement account may be taken without being subject to an IRS penalty for early distribution and the parent decides not to take the distribution, the court may consider the distribution that could have been taken in determining the parent's gross income if the parent is not otherwise employed full-time and the retirement account was not received pursuant to the division of marital property.
• For income from self-employment, rent, royalties, proprietorship of a business, or joint ownership of a partnership or closely held corporation, “gross income” equals gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses, as defined in sub-subparagraph (B) of this subparagraph (III), required to produce such income.

(I.5) If the court or delegate child support enforcement unit imputes income pursuant to this subsection (5), the provisions of subsection (5)(b.5) of this section apply.

• Private or public sector employment;
• Job search activities;
• Community service;
• Vocational training; or
• Any other employment-related activities available to that particular individual.
• The employment is temporary and is reasonably intended to result in higher income within the foreseeable future; or
• The employment is a good faith career choice that is not intended to deprive a child of support and does not unreasonably reduce the support available to a child; or
• (b.5) (I) Except as otherwise provided in this section, if the court or delegate child support enforcement unit determines that a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed or employment information is unreliable, the court or delegate child support enforcement unit shall determine and document, for the record, the parent's potential income.
• The parent's assets;
• Employment and earnings history;
• Job skills;
• Educational attainment;
• Criminal record;
• Income statements of the parents shall be verified with documentation of both current and past earnings. Suitable documentation of current earnings includes pay stubs, employer statements, or receipts and expenses if self-employed. Documentation of current earnings shall be supplemented with copies of the most recent tax return to provide verification of earnings over a longer period. A copy of wage statements or other wage information obtained from the computer database maintained by the department of labor and employment shall be admissible into evidence for purposes of determining income under this subsection (5).
• If a parent is obligated to pay support for another child pursuant to an order, the amount actually paid on the order must be deducted from that parent's gross income;
• If the other child is residing in the home of a parent, the court shall deduct from that parent's gross income the amount calculated pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection (6);
• If another child of a parent is residing outside the home of that parent, the court shall deduct from that parent's gross income the amount of documented money payments actually paid by the parent for the support of the other child, not to exceed the schedule of basic support obligations set forth in subsection (7) of this section.
• The amount of the adjustment must not exceed the schedule of basic support obligations listed in this section. For a parent with gross income of less than one thousand five hundred dollars, the adjustment is seventy-five percent of the amount listed under the schedule of basic child support obligations in subsection (7)(b) of this section that would represent a child support obligation based only upon the responsible parent's income, without any other adjustments for the number of children for whom the parent is responsible. For a parent with gross income of one thousand five hundred dollars or more per month, the adjustment is seventy-five percent of the amount listed under the schedule of basic child support obligations in subsection (7)(b) of this section that would represent a child support obligation based only upon the responsible parent's income, without any other adjustments for the number of other children for whom the parent is responsible. The amount calculated as set forth in this subsection (6)(b) must be subtracted from the amount of the parent's gross income prior to calculating the basic child support obligation based upon both parents' gross income, as provided in subsection (7) of this section.
• The basic child support obligation shall be determined using the schedule of basic child support obligations contained in paragraph (b) of this subsection (7). The basic child support obligation shall be divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes. (a) (I) The basic child support obligation shall be determined using the schedule of basic child support obligations contained in paragraph (b) of this subsection (7). The basic child support obligation shall be divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes.
• (A) For combined gross income that falls between amounts shown in the schedule of basic child support obligations, basic child support amounts shall be interpolated. The category entitled “number of children due support” in the schedule of basic child support obligations shall have the meaning defined in subsection (3) of this section.
• Schedule of basic child support obligations:
• Except in cases of shared physical care or split physical care as defined in paragraphs (h) and (i) of subsection (3) of this section, a total child support obligation is determined by adding each parent's respective basic child support obligation, as determined through the guidelines and schedule of basic child support obligations specified in subsection (7) of this section, work-related net child care costs, extraordinary medical expenses, and extraordinary adjustments to the schedule of basic child support obligations. 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 of basic child support obligations.
• Because shared physical care presumes that certain basic expenses for the children will be duplicated, an adjustment for shared physical care is made by multiplying the basic child support obligation by one and fifty hundredths (1.50). In cases of shared physical care, each parent's adjusted basic child support obligation obtained by application of paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of this section shall first be divided between the parents in proportion to their respective adjusted gross incomes. Each parent's share of the adjusted basic child support obligation shall then be multiplied by the percentage of time the children spend with the other parent to determine the theoretical basic child support obligation owed to the other parent. To these amounts shall be added each parent's proportionate share of work-related net child care costs, extraordinary medical expenses, and extraordinary adjustments to the schedule of basic child support obligations. The parent owing the greater amount of child support shall owe the difference between the two amounts as a child support order minus any ordered direct payments made on behalf of the children for work-related net child care costs, extraordinary medical expenses, or extraordinary adjustments to the schedule of basic child support obligations. In no case, however, shall the amount of child support ordered to be paid exceed the amount of child support that would otherwise be ordered to be paid if the parents did not share physical custody.
• In cases of split physical care, a child support obligation shall be computed separately for each parent based upon the number of children living with the other parent in accordance with subsections (7), (9), (10), and (11) of this section. The amount so determined shall be a theoretical support obligation due each parent for support of the child or children for whom he or she has primary physical custody. The obligations so determined shall then be offset, with the parent owing the larger amount owing the difference between the two amounts as a child support order. (c) (I) In cases of split physical care, a child support obligation shall be computed separately for each parent based upon the number of children living with the other parent in accordance with subsections (7), (9), (10), and (11) of this section. The amount so determined shall be a theoretical support obligation due each parent for support of the child or children for whom he or she has primary physical custody. The obligations so determined shall then be offset, with the parent owing the larger amount owing the difference between the two amounts as a child support order.
• If the parents also share physical care as outlined in paragraph (b) of this subsection (8), an additional adjustment for shared physical care shall be made as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (8).
• Stipulations presented to the court shall be reviewed by the court for approval. No hearing shall be required; however, the court shall use the guidelines and schedule of basic child support obligations to review the adequacy of child support orders negotiated by the parties as well as the financial affidavit that fully discloses the financial status of the parties as required for use of the guidelines and schedule of basic child support obligations.
• In an action to establish or modify child support, whether temporary or permanent, the guidelines and schedule of basic child support obligations set forth in subsection (7) of this section shall be used as a rebuttable presumption for the establishment or modification of the amount of child support. A court may deviate from the guidelines and schedule of basic child support obligations where its application would be inequitable, unjust, or inappropriate. Any such deviation shall be accompanied by written or oral findings by the court specifying the reasons for the deviation and the presumed amount under the guidelines and schedule of basic child support obligations without a deviation. These reasons may include, but are not limited to, instances where one of the parents spends substantially more time with the child than is reflected by a straight calculation of overnights, the extraordinary medical expenses incurred for treatment of either parent or a current spouse, extraordinary costs associated with parenting time, the gross disparity in income between the parents, the ownership by a parent of a substantial nonincome producing asset, consistent overtime not considered in gross income under sub-subparagraph (C) of subparagraph (II) of paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of this section, or income from employment that is in addition to a full-time job or that results in the employment of the obligor more than forty hours per week or more than what would otherwise be considered to be full-time employment. The existence of a factor enumerated in this section does not require the court to deviate from the guidelines and basic schedule of child support obligations but may be a factor to be considered in the decision to deviate. The court may deviate from the guidelines and basic schedule of child support obligations even if a factor enumerated in this section does not exist.
• The guidelines and schedule of basic child support obligations may be used by the parties as the basis for periodic updates of child support obligations.
• For purposes of calculating child support, when two or more children are included in the child support worksheet calculation and the parties have a different number of overnights with two or more of the children, the number of overnights used to determine child support is determined by adding together the number of overnights for each child and then dividing that number by the number of children included in the child support worksheet calculation.
• Net child care costs incurred on behalf of the children due to employment or job search or the education of either parent shall be added to the basic obligation and shall be divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes.
• Child care costs shall not exceed the level required to provide quality care from a licensed source for the children. The value of the federal income tax credit for child care shall be subtracted from actual costs to arrive at a figure for net child care costs.
• In orders issued pursuant to this section, the court shall also provide for the child's or children's current and future medical needs by ordering either parent or both parents to initiate medical or medical and dental insurance coverage for the child or children through currently effective medical or medical and dental insurance policies held by the parent or parents, purchase medical or medical and dental insurance for the child or children, or provide the child or children with current and future medical needs through some other manner. If a parent has been directed to provide insurance pursuant to this section and that parent's spouse provides the insurance for the benefit of the child or children either directly or through employment, a credit on the child support worksheet shall be given to the parent in the same manner as if the premium were paid by the parent. At the same time, the court shall order payment of medical insurance or medical and dental insurance deductibles and copayments.
• The payment of a premium to provide health insurance coverage on behalf of the children subject to the order shall be added to the basic child support obligation and shall be divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted gross income.
• The amount to be added to the basic child support obligation shall be the actual amount of the total insurance premium that is attributable to the child who is the subject of the order. If this amount is not available or cannot be verified, the total cost of the premium should be divided by the total number of persons covered by the policy. The cost per person derived from this calculation shall be multiplied by the number of children who are the subject of the order and who are covered under the policy. This amount shall be added to the basic child support obligation and shall be divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes.
• After the total child support obligation is calculated and divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes, the amount calculated in paragraph (c) of this subsection (10) shall be deducted from the obligor's share of the total child support obligation if the obligor is actually paying the premium. If the obligee is actually paying the premium, no further adjustment is necessary.
• Prior to allowing the health insurance adjustment, the parent requesting the adjustment must submit proof that the child or children have been enrolled in a health insurance plan and must submit proof of the cost of the premium. The court shall require the parent receiving the adjustment to submit annually proof of continued coverage of the child or children to the delegate child support enforcement unit and to the other parent.
• If a parent who is ordered by the court to provide medical or medical and dental insurance for the child or children has insurance that excludes coverage of the child or children because the child or children reside outside the geographic area covered by the insurance policy, the court shall order separate coverage for the child or children if the court determines coverage is available at a reasonable cost.
• Where the application of the premium payment on the guidelines and schedule of basic child support obligations results in a child support order of fifty dollars or less, or the premium payment is five percent or more of the parent's gross income, the court or delegate child support enforcement unit may elect not to require the parent to include the child or children on an existing policy or to purchase insurance. The parent is, however, required to provide insurance when it becomes available at a reasonable cost.
• Any extraordinary medical expenses incurred on behalf of the children shall be added to the basic child support obligation and shall be divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes. (h) (I) Any extraordinary medical expenses incurred on behalf of the children shall be added to the basic child support obligation and shall be divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes.
• Extraordinary medical expenses are uninsured expenses, including copayments and deductible amounts, in excess of two hundred fifty dollars per child per calendar year. Extraordinary medical expenses include, but need not be limited to, such reasonable costs as are reasonably necessary for orthodontia, dental treatment, asthma treatments, physical therapy, vision care, and any uninsured chronic health problem. At the discretion of the court, professional counseling or psychiatric therapy for diagnosed behavioral or mental health disorders may also be considered as an extraordinary medical expense.
• Any expenses for attending any special or private elementary or secondary schools to meet the particular educational needs of the child or public school mandatory school fees; and
• Any expenses for transportation of the child, or the child and an accompanying parent if the child is less than twelve years of age, between the homes of the parents.
• Any additional factors that actually diminish the basic needs of the child may be considered for deductions from the basic child support obligation.
• If the noncustodial parent receives periodic disability benefits granted by the federal “Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Act”, 42 U.S.C. sec. 401 et seq., due to the disability of the noncustodial parent or receives employer-paid retirement benefits from the federal government due to the retirement of the noncustodial parent, the noncustodial parent shall notify the custodial party, and the delegate child support enforcement unit, if a party to the case, within sixty days after the noncustodial party receives notice of such benefits. (c) (I) If the noncustodial parent receives periodic disability benefits granted by the federal “Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Act”, 42 U.S.C. sec. 401 et seq., due to the disability of the noncustodial parent or receives employer-paid retirement benefits from the federal government due to the retirement of the noncustodial parent, the noncustodial parent shall notify the custodial party, and the delegate child support enforcement unit, if a party to the case, within sixty days after the noncustodial party receives notice of such benefits.
• Absent good cause shown, the custodial parent must apply for dependent benefits for the child or children within sixty days after the custodial parent receives notification pursuant to subsection (11)(c)(I) of this section, and shall cooperate with the appropriate federal agency in completing any application for benefits.
• In cases where the custodial parent receives periodic disability benefits granted by the federal “Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Act”, 42 U.S.C. sec. 401 et seq., on behalf of dependent children due to the disability of the noncustodial parent or receives employer-paid retirement benefits from the federal government on behalf of dependent children due to the retirement of the noncustodial parent, the noncustodial parent's share of the total child support obligation as determined pursuant to subsection (8) of this section must be reduced in an amount equal to the amount of the benefits.
• In cases where the custodial parent receives a lump sum retroactive award for benefits granted by the federal old-age, survivors, or disability insurance benefits program, 42 U.S.C. sec. 7, on behalf of a dependent child due to the disability of the noncustodial parent, or receives a lump sum retroactive award for employer-paid retirement benefits from the federal government on behalf of a dependent child due to the retirement of the noncustodial parent, the lump sum award received by the custodial parent must be credited against any retroactive support judgment or any past-due child support obligation, regardless of whether the past-due obligation has been reduced to judgment owed by the noncustodial parent. This credit must not be given against any amounts owed by the noncustodial parent for debt as defined in section 14-14-104 or for any retroactive support or any arrearage that accrued prior to the date of eligibility for disability or retirement benefits as determined by the social security administration. Any lump sum retirement or disability payments due to the retirement or disability of the noncustodial parent, received by the custodial parent as a result of the retirement or disability of the noncustodial parent, paid for a period of time that precedes the date of such benefit date eligibility, or any amount in excess of the established child support order or judgment, must be deemed a gratuity to the child.
• Dependency exemptions. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, the court shall allocate the right to claim dependent children for income tax purposes between the parties. These rights shall be allocated between the parties in proportion to their contributions to the costs of raising the children. A parent shall not be entitled to claim a child as a dependent if he or she has not paid all court-ordered child support for that tax year or if claiming the child as a dependent would not result in any tax benefit.
• The parties agree otherwise in a written stipulation after July 1, 1997;
• If the child is mentally or physically disabled, the court or the delegate child support enforcement unit may order child support, including payments for medical expenses or insurance or both, to continue beyond the age of nineteen;
• If the child is still in high school or an equivalent program, support continues until the end of the month following graduation. A child who ceases to attend high school prior to graduation and later reenrolls is entitled to support upon reenrollment and until the end of the month following graduation, but not beyond age twenty-one.
• If the child marries, the child shall be considered emancipated as of the date of the marriage. If the marriage is annulled, dissolved, or declared invalid, child support may be reinstated.
• If the child enters into active military duty, the child shall be considered emancipated.
• Nothing in paragraph (a) of this subsection (13) or subsection (15) of this section shall preclude the parties from agreeing in a written stipulation or agreement on or after July 1, 1997, to continue child support beyond the age of nineteen or to provide for postsecondary education expenses for a child and to set forth the details of the payment of the expenses. If the stipulation or agreement is approved by the court and made part of a decree of dissolution of marriage or legal separation, the terms of the agreement shall be enforced as provided in section 14-10-112.
• When a child support order is entered or modified, unless otherwise ordered by the court, the parties shall exchange information relevant to child support calculations on changes that have occurred since the previous child support order, and other appropriate information once a year or less often, for the purpose of updating and modifying the order without a court hearing. The parties shall use the approved standardized child support forms specified in subsection (4) of this section in exchanging financial information. The parents shall include the forms with any agreed modification or an agreement that a modification is not appropriate at the time. If the agreed amount departs from the guidelines and schedule of basic child support obligations, the parties shall furnish statements of explanation with the forms and shall file the documents with the court. The court shall review the agreement pursuant to this paragraph (a) and inform the parties by regular mail whether or not additional or corrected information is needed, or that the modification is granted, or that the modification is denied. If the parties cannot agree, a modification pursuant to this paragraph (a) shall not be entered; however, either party may move for or the court may schedule, upon its own motion, a modification hearing.
• 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 forms, as specified in subsection (4) of this section, including information on the actual expenses relating to the children of the marriage for whom support has been ordered. The court shall not order the custodial parent to update the financial information pursuant to this paragraph (b) in circumstances where the noncustodial parent has failed to exercise parenting time rights or when child support payments are in arrears or where there is documented evidence of domestic violence, child abuse, or a violation of a protection order on the part of the noncustodial parent. The court may order the noncustodial parent to pay the costs involved in preparing an update to the financial information. If the noncustodial parent claims, based upon the information in the updated form, that the custodial parent is not spending the child support for the benefit of the children, the court may refer the parties to a mediator to resolve the differences. If there are costs for such mediation, the court shall order that the party requesting the mediation pay such costs.
• This subsection (15) shall apply to all child support obligations established or modified as a part of any proceeding, including but not limited to articles 5, 6, and 10 of this title and articles 4 and 6 of title 19, C.R.S., prior to July 1, 1997. This subsection (15) shall not apply to child support orders established on or after July 1, 1997, which shall be governed by paragraph (a) of subsection (13) of this section.
• The parties agree otherwise in a written stipulation after July 1, 1991;
• If the child is still in high school or an equivalent program, support continues until the end of the month following graduation, unless there is an order for postsecondary education, in which case support continues through postsecondary education as provided in this subsection (15). A child who ceases to attend high school prior to graduation and later reenrolls is entitled to support upon reenrollment and until the end of the month following graduation, but not beyond age twenty-one.
• If the court finds that it is appropriate for the parents to contribute to the costs of a program of postsecondary education, then the court shall terminate child support and enter an order requiring both parents to contribute a sum determined to be reasonable for the education expenses of the child, taking into account the resources of each parent and the child. In determining the amount of each parent's contribution to the costs of a program of postsecondary education for a child, the court shall be limited to an amount not to exceed the amount listed under the schedule of basic child support obligations in paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of this section for the number of children receiving postsecondary education. If such an order is entered, the parents shall contribute to the total sum determined by the court in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes as defined in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section. The amount of contribution that each parent is ordered to pay pursuant to this subsection (15) shall be subtracted from the amount of each parent's gross income, respectively, prior to calculating the basic child support obligation for any remaining children pursuant to subsection (7) of this section.
• In no case shall the court issue orders providing for both child support and postsecondary education to be paid for the same time period for the same child regardless of the age of the child.
• Either parent or the child may move for an order at any time before the child attains the age of twenty-one years. The order for postsecondary education support may not extend beyond the earlier of the child's twenty-first birthday or the completion of an undergraduate degree.
• Either a child seeking an order for postsecondary education expenses or on whose behalf postsecondary education expenses are sought, or the parent from whom the payment of postsecondary education expenses are sought, may request that the court order the child and the parent to seek mediation prior to a hearing on the issue of postsecondary education expenses. Mediation services shall be provided in accordance with section 13-22-305, C.R.S. The court may order the parties to seek mediation if the court finds that mediation is appropriate.
• The court may order the support paid directly to the educational institution, to the child, or in such other fashion as is appropriate to support the education of the child.
• A child shall not be considered emancipated solely by reason of living away from home while in postsecondary education. If the child resides in the home of one parent while attending school or during periods of time in excess of thirty days when school is not in session, the court may order payments from one parent to the other for room and board until the child attains the age of nineteen.
• If the court orders support pursuant to this subsection (15), the court or delegate child support enforcement unit may also order that the parents provide health insurance for the child or pay medical expenses of the child or both for the duration of the order. The order shall provide that these expenses be paid in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes as defined in subsection (3) of this section. The court or delegate child support enforcement unit shall order a parent to provide health insurance if the child is eligible for coverage as a dependent on that parent's insurance policy or if health insurance coverage for the child is available at reasonable cost.
• An order for postsecondary education expenses entered between July 1, 1991, and July 1, 1997, may be modified pursuant to this subsection (15) to provide for postsecondary education expenses subject to the statutory provisions for determining the amount of a parent's contribution to the costs of postsecondary education, the limitations on the amount of a parent's contribution, and the changes to the definition of postsecondary education consistent with this section as it existed on July 1, 1994. An order for child support entered prior to July 1, 1997, that does not provide for postsecondary education expenses shall not be modified pursuant to this subsection (15).
• Postsecondary education support may be established or modified in the same manner as child support under this article.
• The child support guidelines, including the schedule of basic child support obligations, and general child support issues must be reviewed at least once every four years by a child support commission, which commission is hereby created. After the periodic review described in this section, the commission shall submit a report to the governor and to the general assembly explaining the commission's recommendations.
• As part of its review, the commission must consider economic data on the cost of raising children and analyze case data on the application of, and deviations from, the guidelines and the schedule of basic child support obligations to be used in the commission's review to ensure that deviations from the guidelines and schedule of basic child support obligations are limited.
• The child support commission consists of no more than twenty-one members. The governor shall appoint persons to the commission who are representatives of the judiciary and the Colorado bar association. Members of the commission appointed by the governor must also include the director of the division in the state department of human services who is responsible for child support enforcement, or his or her designee, a director of a county department of human or social services, the child support liaison to the judicial department, interested parties, a certified public accountant, and parent representatives. In making his or her appointments to the commission, the governor may appoint persons as parent representatives. In making his or her appointments to the commission, the governor shall attempt to assure geographical diversity. The remaining two members of the commission are a member of the house of representatives appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives and a member of the senate appointed by the president of the senate and must not be members of the same political party.

(d.5) and (e)(Deleted by amendment, L. 2013.)

(K) Interest;

(L) Trust income;

(M) Annuities;

(N) Capital gains;

(O) Any moneys drawn by a self-employed individual for personal use that are deducted as a business expense, which moneys must be considered income from self-employment;

(P) Social security benefits, including social security benefits actually received by a parent as a result of the disability of that parent or as the result of the death of the minor child's stepparent but not including social security benefits received by a minor child or on behalf of a minor child as a result of the death or disability of a stepparent of the child;

(Q) Workers' compensation benefits;

(R) Unemployment insurance benefits;

(S) Disability insurance benefits;

(T) Funds held in or payable from any health, accident, disability, or casualty insurance to the extent that such insurance replaces wages or provides income in lieu of wages;

(U) Monetary gifts;

(W) Income from general partnerships, limited partnerships, closely held corporations, or limited liability companies. However, if a parent is a passive investor, has a minority interest in the company, and does not have any managerial duties or input, then the income to be recognized may be limited to actual cash distributions received.

(Y) Alimony or maintenance received, as adjusted, if applicable, pursuant to subsection (5)(a)(I.5) of this section; and

(Z) Overtime pay, only if the overtime is required by the employer as a condition of employment.

(A) A parent who is physically or mentally incapacitated;

(B) A parent who is caring for a child under the age of twenty-four months for whom the parents owe a joint legal responsibility; or

(J) Other employment barriers;

(K) Record of seeking work;

(L) The local job market;

(M) The availability of employers hiring in the community, without changing existing law regarding the burden of proof;

(N) Prevailing earnings level in the local community; and

(O) Other relevant background factors in the case.

Combined Adjusted Gross Income One Child Two Children Three Children Four Children Five Children Six Children 0-650 10 10 10 10 10 10 651-1500 50 70 90 110 130 150 1500 50 70 90 110 130 150 1550 85 105 125 145 165 185 1600 120 140 160 180 200 220 1650 155 175 195 215 235 255 1700 190 210 230 250 270 290 1750 225 245 265 285 305 325 1800 260 280 300 320 340 360 1850 295 315 335 355 375 395 1900 330 350 370 390 410 430 1950 360 385 405 425 445 465 2000 368 420 440 460 480 500 2050 377 455 475 495 515 535 2100 385 490 510 530 550 570 2150 393 525 545 565 585 605 2200 401 560 580 600 620 640 2250 410 595 615 635 655 675 2300 418 630 650 670 690 710 2350 426 658 685 705 725 745 2400 435 671 720 740 760 780 2450 443 683 755 775 795 815 2500 451 696 790 810 830 850 2550 459 709 825 845 865 885 2600 468 722 860 880 900 920 2650 476 734 895 915 935 955 2700 484 747 913 950 970 990 2750 493 760 928 985 1005 1025 2800 501 772 944 1020 1040 1060 2850 509 785 959 1055 1075 1095 2900 517 797 974 1087 1110 1130 2950 525 809 988 1103 1145 1165 3000 533 821 1002 1119 1180 1200 3050 541 833 1016 1135 1215 1235 3100 548 844 1030 1150 1250 1270 3150 556 856 1044 1166 1283 1305 3200 564 868 1058 1182 1300 1340 3250 572 880 1072 1198 1318 1375 3300 580 892 1086 1214 1335 1410 3350 588 904 1101 1229 1352 1445 3400 596 915 1115 1245 1370 1480 3450 604 928 1129 1261 1388 1508 3500 612 940 1144 1278 1406 1529 3550 620 953 1160 1295 1425 1549 3600 628 965 1175 1312 1444 1569 3650 636 977 1189 1328 1460 1587 3700 643 987 1202 1342 1477 1605 3750 650 998 1215 1357 1493 1622 3800 657 1009 1228 1372 1509 1640 3850 664 1020 1241 1386 1525 1658 3900 671 1031 1254 1401 1541 1675 3950 678 1042 1267 1416 1557 1693 4000 685 1053 1280 1430 1573 1710 4050 692 1063 1294 1445 1589 1728 4100 699 1074 1306 1459 1605 1744 4150 706 1084 1319 1473 1620 1761 4200 713 1095 1331 1487 1635 1778 4250 720 1105 1344 1501 1651 1794 4300 727 1115 1356 1515 1666 1811 4350 734 1126 1368 1529 1681 1828 4400 741 1136 1381 1542 1697 1844 4450 747 1147 1393 1556 1712 1861 4500 754 1157 1406 1570 1727 1878 4550 761 1167 1418 1584 1743 1894 4600 768 1178 1431 1598 1758 1911 4650 775 1188 1443 1612 1773 1928 4700 782 1199 1456 1626 1789 1944 4750 788 1209 1467 1639 1803 1960 4800 795 1218 1478 1651 1817 1975 4850 801 1227 1489 1664 1830 1989 4900 808 1237 1500 1676 1844 2004 4950 814 1246 1511 1688 1857 2019 5000 820 1256 1523 1701 1871 2033 5050 827 1265 1534 1713 1884 2048 5100 833 1274 1545 1725 1898 2063 5150 840 1284 1556 1738 1911 2078 5200 846 1293 1567 1750 1925 2092 5250 852 1303 1578 1762 1938 2107 5300 859 1312 1589 1774 1952 2122 5350 865 1322 1600 1787 1965 2136 5400 871 1330 1610 1798 1978 2150 5450 875 1337 1617 1806 1987 2160 5500 879 1343 1624 1814 1996 2169 5550 883 1349 1631 1822 2005 2179 5600 887 1355 1639 1830 2013 2189 5650 891 1361 1646 1838 2022 2198 5700 896 1367 1653 1846 2031 2208 5750 900 1373 1660 1854 2040 2217 5800 904 1379 1667 1862 2049 2227 5850 908 1385 1674 1870 2057 2236 5900 912 1391 1682 1878 2066 2246 5950 916 1397 1689 1886 2075 2256 6000 920 1404 1696 1894 2084 2265 6050 924 1410 1703 1902 2093 2275 6100 928 1416 1710 1910 2101 2284 6150 932 1422 1717 1918 2110 2294 6200 937 1428 1725 1926 2119 2303 6250 941 1434 1732 1934 2128 2313 6300 945 1440 1739 1942 2136 2322 6350 949 1446 1746 1950 2145 2332 6400 953 1452 1753 1958 2154 2341 6450 957 1458 1760 1966 2162 2351 6500 961 1464 1767 1974 2171 2360 6550 965 1470 1774 1982 2180 2370 6600 969 1476 1782 1990 2189 2379 6650 973 1482 1789 1998 2198 2389 6700 977 1488 1796 2006 2207 2399 6750 981 1494 1803 2014 2216 2408 6800 985 1500 1810 2022 2225 2418 6850 989 1506 1818 2030 2233 2428 6900 993 1512 1825 2038 2242 2437 6950 997 1518 1832 2047 2251 2447 7000 1001 1524 1839 2055 2260 2457 7050 1005 1530 1847 2063 2269 2466 7100 1009 1536 1854 2071 2278 2476 7150 1013 1542 1861 2079 2287 2486 7200 1017 1548 1868 2087 2296 2495 7250 1021 1554 1876 2095 2304 2505 7300 1025 1560 1883 2103 2313 2515 7350 1029 1567 1890 2111 2322 2524 7400 1033 1573 1897 2119 2331 2534 7450 1037 1579 1904 2127 2340 2544 7500 1041 1585 1912 2135 2349 2553 7550 1045 1591 1919 2143 2358 2563 7600 1049 1597 1926 2151 2367 2572 7650 1053 1603 1933 2159 2375 2582 7700 1057 1608 1940 2167 2384 2591 7750 1061 1614 1947 2175 2392 2600 7800 1063 1618 1952 2180 2398 2607 7850 1066 1622 1956 2184 2403 2612 7900 1068 1625 1959 2188 2407 2617 7950 1070 1628 1963 2193 2412 2622 8000 1072 1631 1967 2197 2416 2627 8050 1074 1634 1970 2201 2421 2632 8100 1077 1638 1974 2205 2426 2637 8150 1079 1641 1978 2209 2430 2642 8200 1081 1644 1982 2214 2435 2647 8250 1083 1647 1985 2218 2439 2652 8300 1085 1651 1989 2222 2444 2657 8350 1088 1654 1993 2226 2449 2662 8400 1090 1657 1997 2230 2453 2667 8450 1092 1660 2000 2234 2458 2672 8500 1094 1664 2004 2239 2463 2677 8550 1097 1667 2008 2243 2467 2682 8600 1099 1670 2012 2247 2472 2687 8650 1101 1673 2015 2251 2476 2692 8700 1103 1677 2019 2255 2481 2697 8750 1105 1680 2023 2260 2486 2702 8800 1108 1683 2027 2264 2490 2707 8850 1110 1686 2030 2268 2495 2712 8900 1112 1690 2034 2272 2499 2717 8950 1115 1693 2038 2277 2504 2722 9000 1117 1697 2042 2281 2510 2728 9050 1119 1700 2047 2286 2515 2733 9100 1122 1704 2051 2291 2520 2739 9150 1125 1708 2055 2296 2525 2745 9200 1130 1716 2065 2307 2537 2758 9250 1135 1724 2075 2317 2549 2771 9300 1141 1732 2084 2328 2561 2784 9350 1146 1740 2094 2339 2573 2796 9400 1151 1748 2103 2350 2585 2809 9450 1157 1756 2113 2360 2596 2822 9500 1162 1764 2123 2371 2608 2835 9550 1167 1772 2132 2382 2620 2848 9600 1172 1780 2142 2393 2632 2861 9650 1178 1788 2152 2403 2644 2874 9700 1183 1796 2161 2414 2656 2887 9750 1188 1804 2171 2425 2667 2899 9800 1194 1812 2181 2436 2679 2912 9850 1199 1820 2190 2446 2691 2925 9900 1204 1828 2200 2457 2703 2938 9950 1210 1836 2209 2468 2715 2951 10000 1215 1844 2219 2479 2727 2964 10050 1220 1852 2229 2489 2738 2977 10100 1226 1860 2238 2500 2750 2990 10150 1231 1868 2248 2511 2762 3002 10200 1236 1876 2258 2522 2774 3015 10250 1242 1884 2267 2533 2786 3028 10300 1247 1892 2277 2543 2798 3041 10350 1252 1901 2287 2554 2809 3054 10400 1258 1909 2296 2565 2821 3067 10450 1262 1914 2303 2572 2830 3076 10500 1265 1920 2309 2579 2837 3084 10550 1269 1925 2315 2586 2845 3092 10600 1272 1930 2322 2593 2853 3101 10650 1276 1936 2328 2600 2860 3109 10700 1280 1941 2334 2607 2868 3117 10750 1283 1946 2340 2614 2875 3126 10800 1287 1952 2346 2621 2883 3134 10850 1291 1957 2353 2628 2891 3142 10900 1294 1962 2359 2635 2898 3150 10950 1298 1968 2365 2642 2906 3159 11000 1301 1973 2371 2649 2913 3167 11050 1305 1978 2377 2655 2921 3175 11100 1309 1984 2383 2662 2929 3183 11150 1312 1989 2390 2669 2936 3192 11200 1316 1994 2396 2676 2944 3200 11250 1320 2000 2402 2683 2951 3208 11300 1323 2005 2408 2690 2959 3216 11350 1327 2010 2414 2697 2967 3225 11400 1330 2016 2421 2704 2974 3233 11450 1334 2021 2427 2711 2982 3241 11500 1338 2026 2433 2718 2989 3250 11550 1341 2032 2439 2725 2997 3258 11600 1345 2037 2445 2731 3005 3266 11650 1349 2043 2452 2738 3012 3274 11700 1352 2048 2457 2745 3019 3282 11750 1355 2052 2463 2751 3026 3289 11800 1359 2057 2468 2757 3032 3296 11850 1362 2062 2473 2763 3039 3303 11900 1365 2066 2479 2769 3045 3310 11950 1368 2071 2484 2775 3052 3318 12000 1372 2076 2489 2781 3059 3325 12050 1375 2080 2495 2786 3065 3332 12100 1378 2085 2500 2792 3072 3339 12150 1382 2090 2505 2798 3078 3346 12200 1385 2095 2511 2804 3085 3353 12250 1388 2099 2516 2810 3091 3360 12300 1391 2104 2521 2816 3098 3367 12350 1395 2109 2527 2822 3104 3375 12400 1398 2113 2532 2828 3111 3382 12450 1401 2118 2537 2834 3118 3389 12500 1405 2123 2543 2840 3124 3396 12550 1408 2128 2548 2846 3131 3403 12600 1411 2132 2553 2852 3137 3410 12650 1414 2137 2559 2858 3144 3417 12700 1418 2142 2564 2864 3150 3424 12750 1421 2146 2569 2870 3157 3431 12800 1424 2151 2575 2876 3163 3439 12850 1427 2156 2580 2882 3170 3446 12900 1431 2160 2585 2888 3176 3453 12950 1434 2165 2591 2894 3184 3461 13000 1438 2171 2598 2903 3193 3471 13050 1441 2177 2606 2911 3202 3480 13100 1444 2183 2613 2919 3211 3490 13150 1448 2188 2621 2927 3220 3500 13200 1451 2194 2628 2936 3229 3510 13250 1455 2200 2636 2944 3239 3520 13300 1458 2205 2643 2952 3248 3530 13350 1462 2211 2651 2961 3257 3540 13400 1465 2217 2658 2969 3266 3550 13450 1469 2223 2666 2977 3275 3560 13500 1472 2228 2673 2986 3284 3570 13550 1475 2234 2680 2994 3293 3580 13600 1479 2240 2688 3002 3303 3590 13650 1482 2246 2695 3011 3312 3600 13700 1486 2251 2703 3019 3321 3610 13750 1489 2257 2710 3027 3330 3620 13800 1493 2263 2718 3036 3339 3630 13850 1496 2268 2725 3044 3348 3640 13900 1500 2274 2733 3052 3358 3650 13950 1503 2280 2740 3061 3367 3660 14000 1506 2286 2748 3069 3376 3670 14050 1510 2291 2755 3077 3385 3680 14100 1513 2297 2762 3086 3394 3690 14150 1517 2303 2770 3094 3403 3699 14200 1520 2309 2777 3102 3413 3709 14250 1524 2314 2783 3109 3420 3717 14300 1528 2319 2789 3115 3427 3725 14350 1532 2325 2795 3122 3434 3732 14400 1536 2330 2800 3128 3441 3740 14450 1540 2336 2806 3134 3448 3748 14500 1544 2341 2812 3141 3455 3755 14550 1548 2346 2817 3147 3462 3763 14600 1552 2352 2823 3153 3469 3771 14650 1556 2357 2829 3160 3476 3778 14700 1560 2362 2835 3166 3483 3786 14750 1564 2368 2840 3173 3490 3793 14800 1568 2373 2846 3179 3497 3801 14850 1572 2379 2852 3185 3504 3809 14900 1576 2384 2857 3192 3511 3816 14950 1580 2389 2863 3198 3518 3824 15000 1584 2395 2869 3204 3525 3832 15050 1588 2400 2875 3211 3532 3839 15100 1592 2406 2880 3217 3539 3847 15150 1596 2411 2886 3223 3545 3854 15200 1599 2416 2891 3229 3552 3861 15250 1603 2421 2896 3235 3558 3868 15300 1607 2426 2901 3241 3565 3875 15350 1610 2431 2907 3247 3571 3882 15400 1614 2436 2912 3253 3578 3889 15450 1618 2441 2917 3258 3584 3896 15500 1621 2445 2922 3264 3591 3903 15550 1623 2448 2926 3268 3595 3908 15600 1625 2451 2929 3272 3599 3912 15650 1627 2454 2933 3276 3603 3917 15700 1629 2457 2936 3280 3607 3921 15750 1630 2459 2939 3283 3612 3926 15800 1632 2462 2943 3287 3616 3930 15850 1634 2465 2946 3291 3620 3935 15900 1636 2468 2950 3295 3624 3940 15950 1638 2471 2953 3299 3628 3944 16000 1639 2473 2957 3302 3633 3949 16050 1641 2476 2960 3306 3637 3953 16100 1643 2479 2963 3310 3641 3958 16150 1645 2482 2967 3314 3645 3962 16200 1647 2485 2970 3318 3649 3967 16250 1649 2487 2974 3322 3654 3972 16300 1650 2490 2977 3325 3658 3976 16350 1652 2493 2980 3329 3662 3981 16400 1654 2496 2984 3333 3666 3985 16450 1656 2499 2987 3337 3670 3990 16500 1658 2501 2991 3341 3675 3994 16550 1659 2504 2994 3344 3679 3999 16600 1661 2507 2998 3348 3683 4004 16650 1663 2510 3001 3352 3687 4008 16700 1665 2513 3004 3356 3691 4013 16750 1667 2515 3008 3360 3696 4017 16800 1668 2518 3011 3364 3700 4022 16850 1670 2521 3015 3367 3704 4026 16900 1672 2524 3018 3371 3708 4031 16950 1674 2527 3021 3375 3712 4035 17000 1676 2529 3025 3379 3717 4040 17050 1678 2532 3028 3383 3721 4045 17100 1679 2535 3032 3386 3725 4049 17150 1681 2538 3035 3390 3729 4054 17200 1683 2541 3039 3394 3733 4058 17250 1685 2543 3042 3398 3738 4063 17300 1687 2546 3045 3402 3742 4067 17350 1688 2549 3049 3406 3746 4072 17400 1690 2552 3052 3409 3750 4077 17450 1692 2555 3056 3413 3754 4081 17500 1694 2557 3059 3417 3759 4086 17550 1696 2560 3063 3421 3763 4090 17600 1698 2564 3067 3426 3769 4096 17650 1701 2568 3072 3431 3774 4103 17700 1704 2572 3076 3436 3780 4109 17750 1706 2576 3081 3441 3785 4115 17800 1709 2580 3085 3446 3791 4121 17850 1711 2583 3090 3451 3797 4127 17900 1714 2587 3095 3457 3802 4133 17950 1717 2591 3099 3462 3808 4139 18000 1719 2595 3104 3467 3813 4145 18050 1722 2599 3108 3472 3819 4151 18100 1724 2603 3113 3477 3825 4157 18150 1727 2607 3117 3482 3830 4164 18200 1730 2611 3122 3487 3836 4170 18250 1732 2615 3127 3492 3842 4176 18300 1735 2618 3131 3497 3847 4182 18350 1738 2622 3136 3503 3853 4188 18400 1740 2626 3140 3508 3858 4194 18450 1743 2630 3145 3513 3864 4200 18500 1745 2634 3149 3518 3870 4206 18550 1748 2638 3154 3523 3875 4212 18600 1751 2642 3159 3528 3881 4219 18650 1753 2646 3163 3533 3887 4225 18700 1756 2650 3168 3538 3892 4231 18750 1758 2653 3172 3543 3898 4237 18800 1761 2657 3177 3549 3903 4243 18850 1764 2661 3181 3554 3909 4249 18900 1766 2665 3186 3559 3915 4255 18950 1769 2669 3191 3564 3920 4261 19000 1771 2673 3195 3569 3926 4267 19050 1774 2677 3200 3574 3931 4274 19100 1777 2681 3204 3579 3937 4280 19150 1779 2685 3209 3584 3943 4286 19200 1782 2689 3213 3589 3948 4292 19250 1785 2692 3218 3595 3954 4298 19300 1787 2696 3223 3600 3960 4304 19350 1790 2700 3227 3605 3965 4310 19400 1792 2704 3232 3610 3971 4316 19450 1795 2708 3236 3615 3976 4322 19500 1798 2712 3241 3620 3982 4328 19550 1800 2716 3245 3625 3988 4335 19600 1803 2720 3250 3630 3993 4341 19650 1805 2724 3255 3635 3999 4347 19700 1808 2727 3259 3640 4005 4353 19750 1811 2731 3264 3646 4010 4359 19800 1813 2735 3268 3651 4016 4365 19850 1816 2739 3273 3656 4021 4371 19900 1819 2743 3277 3661 4027 4377 19950 1821 2747 3282 3666 4033 4383 20000 1824 2751 3287 3671 4038 4390 20050 1826 2755 3291 3676 4044 4396 20100 1829 2759 3296 3681 4049 4402 20150 1832 2762 3300 3686 4055 4408 20200 1834 2766 3305 3692 4061 4414 20250 1837 2770 3309 3697 4066 4420 20300 1839 2774 3314 3702 4072 4426 20350 1842 2778 3319 3707 4078 4432 20400 1845 2782 3323 3712 4083 4438 20450 1847 2786 3328 3717 4089 4445 20500 1850 2790 3332 3722 4094 4451 20550 1853 2794 3337 3727 4100 4457 20600 1855 2797 3341 3732 4106 4463 20650 1858 2801 3346 3738 4111 4469 20700 1860 2805 3351 3743 4117 4475 20750 1863 2809 3355 3748 4123 4481 20800 1866 2813 3360 3753 4128 4487 20850 1868 2817 3364 3758 4134 4493 20900 1871 2821 3369 3763 4139 4500 20950 1873 2825 3373 3768 4145 4506 21000 1876 2829 3378 3773 4151 4512 21050 1879 2832 3383 3778 4156 4518 21100 1881 2836 3387 3784 4162 4524 21150 1884 2840 3392 3789 4167 4530 21200 1887 2844 3396 3794 4173 4536 21250 1889 2848 3401 3799 4179 4542 21300 1892 2852 3405 3804 4184 4548 21350 1894 2856 3410 3809 4190 4554 21400 1897 2860 3415 3814 4196 4561 21450 1900 2864 3419 3819 4201 4567 21500 1902 2867 3424 3824 4207 4573 21550 1905 2871 3428 3829 4212 4579 21600 1907 2875 3433 3835 4218 4585 21650 1910 2879 3438 3840 4224 4591 21700 1913 2883 3442 3845 4229 4597 21750 1915 2887 3447 3850 4235 4603 21800 1918 2891 3451 3855 4241 4609 21850 1921 2895 3456 3860 4246 4616 21900 1923 2899 3460 3865 4252 4622 21950 1926 2902 3465 3870 4257 4628 22000 1928 2906 3470 3875 4263 4634 22050 1931 2910 3474 3881 4269 4640 22100 1934 2914 3479 3886 4274 4646 22150 1936 2918 3483 3891 4280 4652 22200 1939 2922 3488 3896 4285 4658 22250 1941 2926 3492 3901 4291 4664 22300 1944 2930 3497 3906 4297 4671 22350 1947 2934 3502 3911 4302 4677 22400 1949 2937 3506 3916 4308 4683 22450 1952 2941 3511 3921 4314 4689 22500 1955 2945 3515 3927 4319 4695 22550 1957 2949 3520 3932 4325 4701 22600 1960 2953 3524 3937 4330 4707 22650 1962 2957 3529 3942 4336 4713 22700 1965 2961 3534 3947 4342 4719 22750 1968 2965 3538 3952 4347 4725 22800 1970 2969 3543 3957 4353 4732 22850 1973 2972 3547 3962 4359 4738 22900 1975 2976 3552 3967 4364 4744 22950 1978 2980 3556 3973 4370 4750 23000 1981 2984 3561 3978 4375 4756 23050 1983 2988 3566 3983 4381 4762 23100 1986 2992 3570 3988 4387 4768 23150 1989 2996 3575 3993 4392 4774 23200 1991 3000 3579 3998 4398 4780 23250 1994 3004 3584 4003 4404 4787 23300 1998 3010 3591 4011 4412 4796 23350 2002 3016 3598 4019 4421 4806 23400 2006 3022 3606 4027 4430 4816 23450 2010 3028 3613 4035 4439 4825 23500 2014 3034 3620 4044 4448 4835 23550 2018 3040 3627 4052 4457 4844 23600 2022 3046 3634 4060 4466 4854 23650 2026 3052 3642 4068 4474 4864 23700 2030 3058 3649 4076 4483 4873 23750 2034 3064 3656 4084 4492 4883 23800 2038 3070 3663 4092 4501 4893 23850 2042 3076 3670 4100 4510 4902 23900 2046 3082 3678 4108 4519 4912 23950 2050 3088 3685 4116 4528 4922 24000 2054 3094 3692 4124 4536 4931 24050 2058 3100 3699 4132 4545 4941 24100 2062 3106 3707 4140 4554 4950 24150 2066 3112 3714 4148 4563 4960 24200 2070 3118 3721 4156 4572 4970 24250 2074 3124 3728 4164 4581 4979 24300 2078 3130 3735 4172 4590 4989 24350 2082 3137 3743 4180 4598 4999 24400 2086 3143 3750 4188 4607 5008 24450 2090 3149 3757 4197 4616 5018 24500 2094 3155 3764 4205 4625 5027 24550 2098 3161 3771 4213 4634 5037 24600 2102 3167 3779 4221 4643 5047 24650 2106 3173 3786 4229 4652 5056 24700 2110 3179 3793 4237 4661 5066 24750 2114 3185 3800 4245 4669 5076 24800 2118 3191 3807 4253 4678 5085 24850 2122 3197 3815 4261 4687 5095 24900 2126 3203 3822 4269 4696 5104 24950 2130 3209 3829 4277 4705 5114 25000 2134 3215 3836 4285 4714 5124 25050 2138 3221 3844 4293 4723 5133 25100 2142 3227 3851 4301 4731 5143 25150 2146 3233 3858 4309 4740 5153 25200 2150 3239 3865 4317 4749 5162 25250 2154 3245 3872 4325 4758 5172 25300 2158 3251 3880 4333 4767 5182 25350 2162 3257 3887 4342 4776 5191 25400 2166 3263 3894 4350 4785 5201 25450 2170 3269 3901 4358 4793 5210 25500 2174 3276 3908 4366 4802 5220 25550 2178 3282 3916 4374 4811 5230 25600 2182 3288 3923 4382 4820 5239 25650 2186 3294 3930 4390 4829 5249 25700 2190 3300 3937 4398 4838 5259 25750 2194 3306 3944 4406 4847 5268 25800 2198 3312 3952 4414 4855 5278 25850 2202 3318 3959 4422 4864 5287 25900 2206 3324 3966 4430 4873 5297 25950 2210 3330 3973 4438 4882 5307 26000 2214 3336 3981 4446 4891 5316 26050 2218 3342 3988 4454 4900 5326 26100 2222 3348 3995 4462 4909 5336 26150 2226 3354 4002 4470 4917 5345 26200 2230 3360 4009 4478 4926 5355 26250 2234 3366 4017 4486 4935 5365 26300 2238 3372 4024 4495 4944 5374 26350 2242 3378 4031 4503 4953 5384 26400 2247 3384 4038 4511 4962 5393 26450 2251 3390 4045 4519 4971 5403 26500 2255 3396 4053 4527 4979 5413 26550 2259 3402 4060 4535 4988 5422 26600 2263 3408 4067 4543 4997 5432 26650 2267 3415 4074 4551 5006 5442 26700 2271 3421 4081 4559 5015 5451 26750 2275 3427 4089 4567 5024 5461 26800 2279 3433 4096 4575 5033 5470 26850 2283 3439 4103 4583 5041 5480 26900 2287 3445 4110 4591 5050 5490 26950 2291 3451 4118 4599 5059 5499 27000 2295 3457 4125 4607 5068 5509 27050 2299 3463 4132 4615 5077 5519 27100 2303 3469 4139 4623 5086 5528 27150 2307 3475 4146 4631 5095 5538 27200 2311 3481 4154 4640 5103 5547 27250 2315 3487 4161 4648 5112 5557 27300 2319 3493 4168 4656 5121 5567 27350 2323 3499 4175 4664 5130 5576 27400 2327 3505 4182 4672 5139 5586 27450 2331 3511 4190 4680 5148 5596 27500 2335 3517 4197 4688 5157 5605 27550 2339 3523 4204 4696 5165 5615 27600 2343 3529 4211 4704 5174 5625 27650 2347 3535 4218 4712 5183 5634 27700 2351 3541 4226 4720 5192 5644 27750 2355 3547 4233 4728 5201 5653 27800 2359 3554 4240 4736 5210 5663 27850 2363 3560 4247 4744 5219 5673 27900 2367 3566 4255 4752 5228 5682 27950 2371 3572 4262 4760 5236 5692 28000 2375 3578 4269 4768 5245 5702 28050 2379 3584 4276 4776 5254 5711 28100 2383 3590 4283 4785 5263 5721 28150 2387 3596 4291 4793 5272 5730 28200 2391 3602 4298 4801 5281 5740 28250 2395 3608 4305 4809 5290 5750 28300 2399 3614 4312 4817 5298 5759 28350 2403 3620 4319 4825 5307 5769 28400 2407 3626 4327 4833 5316 5779 28450 2411 3632 4334 4841 5325 5788 28500 2415 3638 4341 4849 5334 5798 28550 2419 3644 4348 4857 5343 5808 28600 2423 3650 4355 4865 5352 5817 28650 2427 3656 4363 4873 5360 5827 28700 2431 3662 4370 4881 5369 5836 28750 2435 3668 4377 4889 5378 5846 28800 2439 3674 4384 4897 5387 5856 28850 2443 3680 4392 4905 5396 5865 28900 2447 3686 4399 4913 5405 5875 28950 2451 3692 4406 4921 5414 5885 29000 2455 3699 4413 4929 5422 5894 29050 2459 3705 4420 4938 5431 5904 29100 2463 3711 4428 4946 5440 5913 29150 2467 3717 4435 4954 5449 5923 29200 2471 3723 4442 4962 5458 5933 29250 2475 3729 4449 4970 5467 5942 29300 2479 3735 4456 4978 5476 5952 29350 2483 3741 4464 4986 5484 5962 29400 2487 3747 4471 4994 5493 5971 29450 2491 3753 4478 5002 5502 5981 29500 2495 3759 4485 5010 5511 5990 29550 2499 3765 4492 5018 5520 6000 29600 2503 3771 4500 5026 5529 6010 29650 2507 3777 4507 5034 5538 6019 29700 2511 3783 4514 5042 5546 6029 29750 2515 3789 4521 5050 5555 6039 29800 2519 3795 4529 5058 5564 6048 29850 2523 3801 4536 5066 5573 6058 29900 2527 3807 4543 5074 5582 6068 29950 2531 3813 4550 5083 5591 6077 30000 2535 3819 4557 5091 5600 6087

History. Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 527, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 46-1-15. L. 85: (2) added, p. 592, § 10, effective July 1. L. 86: (3) to (16) added, p. 718, § 1, effective November 1. L. 87: (3)(b), (5), IP(7)(a), (10)(a), (11), and (12) amended, (7)(b)(II), (15), and (16) repealed, (7)(d), (7)(e), (10)(c), and (17) added, and (8), (9), (13), and (14) R&RE, pp. 587, 588, 600, 591, 589, §§ 5, 7, 38, 9, 6, 8, effective July 10. L. 89: (7)(d.5) added and (17) amended, p. 792, §§ 14, 15, effective July 1. L. 90: (18) added, p. 890, § 10, effective June 7; (7)(a)(I)(A), (7)(c), and (13)(a)(III) amended and (7)(b)(III) added, pp. 564, 890, 889, §§ 35, 10, 9, effective July 1. L. 91: (18)(a) amended, p. 359, § 21, effective April 9; (1.5) added and (7)(b), (13), (14)(b), and (18) amended, p. 234, § 1, effective July 1. L. 92: (17) amended, p. 2171, § 18, effective June 2; (1.5)(b)(I), (2), (3)(a), (3)(b), (7)(a), (7)(e), (8), (10)(a)(II), (10)(c), (14)(c)(I), (18), and (18)(a) amended, (1.5)(d), (13.5), (14.5), and (16.5) added, (7)(e) repealed, and (10)(b) R&RE, pp. 166, 203, 188, 169, 198, 193, §§ 1, 9, 2, 3, effective August 1. L. 93: (1.5)(b)(I) and (3)(b)(III) amended and (1.5)(e) added, pp. 1556, 577, §§ 1, 7, effective July 1; (1.5)(b)(I), (2), and (10)(c) amended and (3.5) and (18)(e) added, pp. 1559, 1560, §§ 7, 8, effective September 1. L. 94: (1.5)(b)(I), (1.5)(e), (7)(a)(I)(A), (7)(b)(III), (7)(d.5)(I), and (18)(e) amended, p. 1536, § 5, effective July 1; (18)(a) amended, p. 2645, § 107, effective July 1. L. 96: IP(1), (2), (3)(a), (3)(b)(II), (7)(a)(I)(A), (7)(a)(I)(C), (7)(b)(I), (10)(a)(II), (11)(a), (12), (13.5), and (16.5) amended, p. 594, § 7, effective July 1. L. 97: (1.5) amended and (1.6) and (1.7) added, p. 565, § 20, effective July 1; (1.5), (3.5), (7)(b), and (18)(a) amended and (1.6) and (1.7) added, pp. 1264, 1312, §§ 8, 49, effective July 1; (5) and (17) amended, p. 561, § 5, effective July 1; (7)(a)(I)(B) amended, p. 1240, § 37, effective July 1. L. 98: (3)(a), (7)(d.5)(I), and (13)(a)(II) amended, p. 768, § 21, effective July 1; (7)(a)(I)(A) amended, p. 921, § 7, effective July 1; (4)(c), (8), (9), (10)(c), and (14) amended, p. 1398, § 42, effective February 1, 1999. L. 99: (3.5) amended, p. 1085, § 2, effective July 1; (7)(a)(I)(A) amended, p. 621, § 15, effective August 4. L. 2000: (18) amended, p. 1709, § 6, effective July 1. L. 2001: (18)(a) amended and (19) added, p. 721, § 4, effective May 31. L. 2002: (10)(a)(II), (10)(b), and (13.5)(h)(II) amended, p. 286, § 1, effective January 1, 2003. L. 2003: (3)(b)(III) amended, p. 1011, § 15, effective July 1; (10)(a)(II)(B), (10)(a)(II)(C), and (10)(a)(II)(D) amended, p. 1264, § 51, effective July 1. L. 2004: (5), (10)(a)(II)(A), (13.5)(h)(II), and (19) amended, p. 385, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2005: (1.6) amended, p. 80, § 1, effective August 8. L. 2006: IP(1.6) amended, p. 516, § 1, effective August 7. L. 2007: Entire section amended with relocated provisions, p. 73, § 1, effective March 16; (16)(d.5) added, p. 178, § 7, effective March 22; (13)(a)(IV), (13)(a)(V), (15)(b)(IV), and (15)(b)(V) added and IP(15)(b) amended, p. 1649, §§ 5, 3, effective May 31; (6)(b)(I) and (10)(a) amended, p. 1651, § 7, effective January 1, 2008. L. 2008: (4)(b) and (5)(b)(I) amended, p. 1347, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2009: (5)(a)(I)(H) amended,(SB 09-282), ch. 288, p. 1397, § 59, effective January 1, 2010. L. 2013: (5)(a)(I)(D), (5)(a)(I)(O), (5)(a)(I)(W), (6)(b)(I), (7)(a)(II)(B), (7)(a)(II)(C), (7)(a)(II)(D), and (16) amended, (5)(a)(II)(E) and (11)(d) added, and (7)(b) R&RE,(HB 13-1209), ch. 103, pp. 327, 332, §§ 1, 2, effective January 1, 2014. L. 2014: (16)(d) amended,(SB 14-153), ch. 390, p. 1961, § 7, effective June 6. L. 2016: (6), (8)(e), (10)(g), and (14)(a) amended, (HB 16-1165), ch. 157, pp. 493, 494, 495, §§ 4, 5, 6, 7, effective January 1, 2017. L. 2017: (3)(f) and (3)(g) amended,(SB 17-294), ch. 264, p. 1391, § 29, effective May 25; (10)(h)(II) amended,(SB 17-242), ch. 263, p. 1295, § 113, effective May 25; (16)(a) amended,(SB 17-234), ch. 154, p. 520, § 1, effective August 9. L. 2018: (3)(a), IP(5)(a)(I), and (5)(a)(I)(Y) amended and (5)(a)(I.5) added,(HB 18-1385), ch. 251, p. 1546, § 2, effective August 8; (16)(c) amended,(SB 18-092), ch. 38, p. 400, § 14, effective August 8. L. 2019: (5)(b)(I) and (5)(b)(III) amended and (5)(b)(I.5) and (5)(b.5) added,(HB 19-1215), ch. 270, p. 2521, § 1, effective July 1; (16)(a) amended,(HB 19-1215), ch. 270, p. 2552, § 2, effective July 1; (3)(c.5) and (8)(g) added and (6)(b), (7)(a)(II)(B), (7)(a)(II)(C), (7)(a)(II)(D), (7)(b), IP(11)(a), (11)(a)(I), and (11)(c) amended,(HB 19-1215), ch. 270, p. 2521, § 1, effective July 1, 2020. L. 2021: (6)(b), (7)(a)(II)(C), (7)(a)(II)(D), and (7)(b) amended,(HB 21-1220), ch. 212, p. 1118, § 1, effective July 1. History. Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 527, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 46-1-15. L. 85: (2) added, p. 592, § 10, effective July 1. L. 86: (3) to (16) added, p. 718, § 1, effective November 1. L. 87: (3)(b), (5), IP(7)(a), (10)(a), (11), and (12) amended, (7)(b)(II), (15), and (16) repealed, (7)(d), (7)(e), (10)(c), and (17) added, and (8), (9), (13), and (14) R&RE, pp. 587, 588, 600, 591, 589, §§ 5, 7, 38, 9, 6, 8, effective July 10. L. 89: (7)(d.5) added and (17) amended, p. 792, §§ 14, 15, effective July 1. L. 90: (18) added, p. 890, § 10, effective June 7; (7)(a)(I)(A), (7)(c), and (13)(a)(III) amended and (7)(b)(III) added, pp. 564, 890, 889, §§ 35, 10, 9, effective July 1. L. 91: (18)(a) amended, p. 359, § 21, effective April 9; (1.5) added and (7)(b), (13), (14)(b), and (18) amended, p. 234, § 1, effective July 1. L. 92: (17) amended, p. 2171, § 18, effective June 2; (1.5)(b)(I), (2), (3)(a), (3)(b), (7)(a), (7)(e), (8), (10)(a)(II), (10)(c), (14)(c)(I), (18), and (18)(a) amended, (1.5)(d), (13.5), (14.5), and (16.5) added, (7)(e) repealed, and (10)(b) R&RE, pp. 166, 203, 188, 169, 198, 193, §§ 1, 9, 2, 3, effective August 1. L. 93: (1.5)(b)(I) and (3)(b)(III) amended and (1.5)(e) added, pp. 1556, 577, §§ 1, 7, effective July 1; (1.5)(b)(I), (2), and (10)(c) amended and (3.5) and (18)(e) added, pp. 1559, 1560, §§ 7, 8, effective September 1. L. 94: (1.5)(b)(I), (1.5)(e), (7)(a)(I)(A), (7)(b)(III), (7)(d.5)(I), and (18)(e) amended, p. 1536, § 5, effective July 1; (18)(a) amended, p. 2645, § 107, effective July 1. L. 96: IP(1), (2), (3)(a), (3)(b)(II), (7)(a)(I)(A), (7)(a)(I)(C), (7)(b)(I), (10)(a)(II), (11)(a), (12), (13.5), and (16.5) amended, p. 594, § 7, effective July 1. L. 97: (1.5) amended and (1.6) and (1.7) added, p. 565, § 20, effective July 1; (1.5), (3.5), (7)(b), and (18)(a) amended and (1.6) and (1.7) added, pp. 1264, 1312, §§ 8, 49, effective July 1; (5) and (17) amended, p. 561, § 5, effective July 1; (7)(a)(I)(B) amended, p. 1240, § 37, effective July 1. L. 98: (3)(a), (7)(d.5)(I), and (13)(a)(II) amended, p. 768, § 21, effective July 1; (7)(a)(I)(A) amended, p. 921, § 7, effective July 1; (4)(c), (8), (9), (10)(c), and (14) amended, p. 1398, § 42, effective February 1, 1999. L. 99: (3.5) amended, p. 1085, § 2, effective July 1; (7)(a)(I)(A) amended, p. 621, § 15, effective August 4. L. 2000: (18) amended, p. 1709, § 6, effective July 1. L. 2001: (18)(a) amended and (19) added, p. 721, § 4, effective May 31. L. 2002: (10)(a)(II), (10)(b), and (13.5)(h)(II) amended, p. 286, § 1, effective January 1, 2003. L. 2003: (3)(b)(III) amended, p. 1011, § 15, effective July 1; (10)(a)(II)(B), (10)(a)(II)(C), and (10)(a)(II)(D) amended, p. 1264, § 51, effective July 1. L. 2004: (5), (10)(a)(II)(A), (13.5)(h)(II), and (19) amended, p. 385, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2005: (1.6) amended, p. 80, § 1, effective August 8. L. 2006: IP(1.6) amended, p. 516, § 1, effective August 7. L. 2007: Entire section amended with relocated provisions, p. 73, § 1, effective March 16; (16)(d.5) added, p. 178, § 7, effective March 22; (13)(a)(IV), (13)(a)(V), (15)(b)(IV), and (15)(b)(V) added and IP(15)(b) amended, p. 1649, §§ 5, 3, effective May 31; (6)(b)(I) and (10)(a) amended, p. 1651, § 7, effective January 1, 2008. L. 2008: (4)(b) and (5)(b)(I) amended, p. 1347, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2009: (5)(a)(I)(H) amended,(SB 09-282), ch. 288, p. 1397, § 59, effective January 1, 2010. L. 2013: (5)(a)(I)(D), (5)(a)(I)(O), (5)(a)(I)(W), (6)(b)(I), (7)(a)(II)(B), (7)(a)(II)(C), (7)(a)(II)(D), and (16) amended, (5)(a)(II)(E) and (11)(d) added, and (7)(b) R&RE,(HB 13-1209), ch. 103, pp. 327, 332, §§ 1, 2, effective January 1, 2014. L. 2014: (16)(d) amended,(SB 14-153), ch. 390, p. 1961, § 7, effective June 6. L. 2016: (6), (8)(e), (10)(g), and (14)(a) amended, (HB 16-1165), ch. 157, pp. 493, 494, 495, §§ 4, 5, 6, 7, effective January 1, 2017. L. 2017: (3)(f) and (3)(g) amended,(SB 17-294), ch. 264, p. 1391, § 29, effective May 25; (10)(h)(II) amended,(SB 17-242), ch. 263, p. 1295, § 113, effective May 25; (16)(a) amended,(SB 17-234), ch. 154, p. 520, § 1, effective August 9. L. 2018: (3)(a), IP(5)(a)(I), and (5)(a)(I)(Y) amended and (5)(a)(I.5) added,(HB 18-1385), ch. 251, p. 1546, § 2, effective August 8; (16)(c) amended,(SB 18-092), ch. 38, p. 400, § 14, effective August 8. L. 2019: (5)(b)(I) and (5)(b)(III) amended and (5)(b)(I.5) and (5)(b.5) added,(HB 19-1215), ch. 270, p. 2521, § 1, effective July 1; (16)(a) amended,(HB 19-1215), ch. 270, p. 2552, § 2, effective July 1; (3)(c.5) and (8)(g) added and (6)(b), (7)(a)(II)(B), (7)(a)(II)(C), (7)(a)(II)(D), (7)(b), IP(11)(a), (11)(a)(I), and (11)(c) amended,(HB 19-1215), ch. 270, p. 2521, § 1, effective July 1, 2020. L. 2021: (6)(b), (7)(a)(II)(C), (7)(a)(II)(D), and (7)(b) amended,(HB 21-1220), ch. 212, p. 1118, § 1, effective July 1.

• This section was amended in Senate Bill 07-015, resulting in the relocation of provisions. For a detailed comparison of relocated provisions, see the table located in the back of the index.
• Subsection (16.5)(d.5) was originally numbered as subsection (18)(a.5), and the amendments to it in Senate Bill 07-076 were harmonized with Senate Bill 07-015 and renumbered as subsection (16)(d.5).
• For provisions concerning deductions for health insurance from wages due an obligor ordered to provide health insurance, see § 14-14-112.
• For the legislative declaration contained in the 1993 act amending subsection (3)(b)(III), see section 1 of chapter 165, Session Laws of Colorado 1993. For the legislative declaration contained in the act amending subsection (18)(a), see section 1 of chapter 345, Session Laws of Colorado 1994. For the legislative declaration contained in the 1997 act amending subsections (1.5), (3.5), (7)(b), and (18)(a) and enacting subsections (1.6) and (1.7), see section 1 of chapter 236, Session Laws of Colorado 1997. For the legislative declaration in SB 17-242, see section 1 of chapter 263, Session Laws of Colorado 2017. For the legislative declaration in SB 18-092, see section 1 of chapter 38, Session Laws of Colorado 2018.
• For the “Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Act”, see 42 U.S.C. sec. 401 et seq.
• I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.
• II. DUTY OF SUPPORT.
• B. Discretion of Court.
• C. Modification.
• D. Termination upon Emancipation.
• IV. PAST DUE SUPPORT.
• II. SECURITY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER.
• III. ENFORCEMENT BY EXECUTION.
• IV. ENFORCEMENT BY CONTEMPT.

Law reviews. For article, “What Really Happens in Child Support Cases: An Empirical Study of Establishment and Enforcement of Child Support Orders in the Denver District Court”, see 57 Den. L.J. 21 (1979). For article, “Automatic Escalation Clauses Relating to Maintenance and Child Support”, see 12 Colo. Law. 1083 (1983). For article, “Support Calculation Revisited”, see 12 Colo. Law. 1647 (1983). For article, “Domestic Case Update”, see 14 Colo. Law. 209 (1985). For article, “Child Support Guidelines: Will They Cause More Problems Than They Cure?”, see 15 Colo. Law. 408 (1986). For article, “Summary of the Report on the Colorado Commission Child Support and Proposed Child Support Guidelines”, see 15 Colo. Law. 665 (1986). For article, “New Child Support Guideline Adopted”, see 15 Colo. Law. 1662 (1986). For article, “Key Issues in the Colorado Child Support Guidelines”, see 16 Colo. Law 51 (1987). For article, “Postsecondary Education Costs: Forging Through a Legislative Labyrinth”, see 24 Colo. Law. 43 (1995). For article, “Calculating Income in Child Support Cases”, see 25 Colo. Law. 53 (Mar. 1996). For article, “Post-secondary Education Expenses: A Multi-tiered Approach”, see 27 Colo. Law. 61 (Jan. 1998). For article, “Determining Gross Income for Child Support Purposes”, see 32 Colo. Law. 65 (May 2003). For article, “The State of Voluntary Unemployment and Underemployment in Colorado”, see 34 Colo. Law. 49 (Nov. 2005). For article, “Colorado Child Support Case Law Update”, see 36 Colo. Law. 79 (Oct. 2007). For article, “Postsecondary Education Expenses after Chalat: Paying College Expenses after Divorce”, see 38 Colo. Law. 19 (Jan. 2009). For article, “Child Support Continuation for Disabled Children”, see 40 Colo. Law. 61 (Dec. 2011). For article, “Retroactive Child Support: Conflicting Decisions and Practical Advice”, see 41 Colo. Law. 91 (Aug. 2012). For article, “'Til Death Do Us Part”, see 46 Colo. Law. 34 (July 2017).

Annotator's note. Since § 14-10-115 is similar to § 14-10-115 as it existed prior to the 2007 amendment relocating provisions, § 46-1-5 (1)(c) , C.R.S. 1963, § 46-1-5, CRS 53, and CSA, C. 56, § 8, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

This section does not violate equal protection, due process, and privacy rights, and enforcement of the section is not an unconstitutional taking of property or an ongoing threat of imprisonment for debt. A distinction between sets of parents based on marital status is rationally related to the legitimate state interest to insure that children of divorced or separated parents receive support despite the divorce or separation. Stillman v. State, 87 P.3d 200 (Colo. App. 2003).

Because it approximates the amount of parental income that the child would have received in an intact family, application of the child support guidelines is not arbitrary, capricious, fundamentally unfair, or coercive. Stillman v. State, 87 P.3d 200 (Colo. App. 2003).

There may be a remedy for child support apart from a divorce action. Scheer v. District Court, 147 Colo. 265 , 363 P.2d 1059 (1961).

Duty of child support is independent, and is not limited to, entry of decree of dissolution. In re Price, 727 P.2d 1073 (Colo. 1986).

Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act provides separate sections that govern the different elements of a dissolution order, specifically property disposition, maintenance, child support, and attorney fees. The court is required to make separate orders regarding these elements based on separate considerations and may not commingle one element with another. In re Huff, 834 P.2d 244 (Colo. 1992).

Child has standing to seek support for herself under this section. In re Conradson, 43 Colo. App. 432, 604 P.2d 701 (1979).

Reasonable and necessary business expenses may be satisfied before support payment. Obligations relating to reasonable and necessary expenses associated with maintaining the structure and solvency of a business or the production of income can be satisfied before payment of child support. In re Crowley, 663 P.2d 267 (Colo. App. 1983).

Interest accrues on arrearages from the date each installment becomes due. In re Pote, 847 P.2d 246 (Colo. App. 1993).

Award of past pregnancy expenses and support. There is no jurisdiction under this section to award expenses incurred prior to the date of the filing of a motion for child support. In re Garcia, 695 P.2d 774 (Colo. App. 1984).

Reasonable to charge support against Colorado property of out-of-country father. Where the trial court ordered the father, who resides in Norway, to pay child support in a lump sum amount, and the court further ordered that such sum should be a charge against certain Colorado property interests of the father, such order was reasonable and not confiscatory. Berge v. Berge, 189 Colo. 103 , 536 P.2d 1135 (1975).

Subsection (1.5)(a)(II) provides that emancipation occurs and an order for child support terminates when a child attains 19 years of age, unless the child is then mentally or physically disabled and, if a child is physically or mentally incapable of self-support upon attaining majority at age 21, the duty of parental support continues for the duration of the disability. Koltay v. Koltay, 667 P.2d 1374 (Colo. 1983); In re Cropper, 895 P.2d 1158 (Colo. App. 1995).

The plain language of subsection (1)(b)(I) creates no exemption for separation agreements entered into under and consistent with earlier legislation. Although the parties' specific intention in 1991 separation agreement to share four years of college costs prevailed over general intention that child would be emancipated at 21 years of age, subsection (1)(b)(I) nevertheless controls and requires that father's college cost obligation terminates upon the earlier of the child's 21st birthday or completion of a four-year college program. In re Crowder, 77 P.3d 858 (Colo. App. 2003).

Subsection (1.5)(c) was modified to distinguish between orders for postsecondary education costs entered prior to, and after, July 1, 1997, when in a distinct departure from prior law, the court could no longer enter orders for postsecondary education expenses absent written agreement of the parties. In re Chalat, 94 P.3d 1191 (Colo. App. 2004), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 112 P.3d 47 (Colo. 2005).

Subsection (1.5)(c.5) was added in 1997 to clarify that the convoluted legislation that had been passed since 1991 was applicable to all orders that concerned postsecondary education expenses and that were established or modified prior to July 1, 1997. In re Chalat, 94 P.3d 1191 (Colo. App. 2004), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 112 P.3d 47 (Colo. 2005).

Tax exemptions. Court has authority to divide tax exemptions between the parents. In re Berjer, 789 P.2d 468 (Colo. App. 1989); In re Nielson, 794 P.2d 1097 (Colo. App. 1990); In re Larsen, 805 P.2d 1195 (Colo. App. 1991).

Court must allocate dependency exemption between the parties based on their respective gross incomes. Federal tax law contemplates such an allocation, and does not preempt it. S.F.E. in Interest of T.I.E., 981 P.2d 642 (Colo. App. 1998).

When allocating tax exemptions between the parents, the phrase “contributions to the costs of raising the children” refers to the percentage of child support attributed to each parent in the course of making the child support computation. In re Staggs, 940 P.2d 1109 (Colo. App. 1997).

The trial court may consider the allocation of tax exemptions in a motion for modification. In re Oberg, 900 P.2d 1267 (Colo. App. 1994).

A parent may not be ordered to pay an ex-spouse child support amounts for a period prior to entry of a child support order. In re Pote, 847 P.2d 246 (Colo. App. 1993).

Husband's discovery request that wife list all gifts, including without limitation, jewelry, clothes, entertainment, travel, and restaurant meals provided to her or the children by her current husband; list all amounts paid by wife's current husband directly to wife or to other parties from which she received a benefit, including attorney fees, maid service, cable television, mortgage payments, car and home repairs, insurance, and utilities; and list all assets purchased for which her current husband contributed, and husband's definition of “income” to include “all funds available for your use, including gifts” was significantly broader than the statutory definition of gross income, and therefore, denial of husband's motion to compel was proper. In re Seanor, 876 P.2d 44 (Colo. App. 1993).

Applied in Smith v. Casey, 198 Colo. 433 , 601 P.2d 632 (1979); In re Hartford, 44 Colo. App. 303, 612 P.2d 1163 (1980); In re Dickey, 658 P.2d 276 (Colo. App. 1982); In re Steele, 714 P.2d 497 (Colo. App. 1985); In re Stone, 749 P.2d 467 (Colo. App. 1987).

This section includes adopted children as well as natural children. In re Ashlock, 629 P.2d 1108 (Colo. App. 1981).

Absent a legal parent-child relationship, there is no duty to support a child under this section. In re Bonifas, 879 P.2d 478 (Colo. App. 1994).

Husband and wife who sought and were granted custody of a non-biological child under a parental responsibility order owed a duty of support to the child, and trial court had the authority in their dissolution of marriage proceeding to order husband to pay child support pursuant to subsections (1) and (17). In re Rodrick, 176 P.3d 806 (Colo. App. 2007).

Although this section does not define “psychological parent”, it is a well-founded legislative concept in other parts of statute. In this case, the father was unquestionably the psychological parent to children. He fought for and obtained orders for parenting time and certain decision-making responsibilities. Because he not only sought to remain in the children's lives but was granted such opportunity by the court, he is also bound by the parental duty to financially support those children. In re A.C.H., 2019 COA 43 , 440 P.3d 1266.

Only the parents' incomes and not the guardians' are to be included in the determination of child support, as supported by § 15-14-209 (2) , which states, “A guardian need not use the guardian's personal funds for the ward's expenses”. Sidman v. Sidman, 240 P.3d 360 (Colo. App. 2009).

Section contemplates a parent being responsible for the support of his children, not his former spouse, however reprehensible his behavior. Therefore it was error to award the reimbursement of mother's transportation costs as child care. In re Kluver, 771 P.2d 34 (Colo. App. 1989).

Child must reside and be supported by spouse granted custody and support. Wife who has been granted child custody is only entitled to support payments when the children were actually with her and supported by her. Brown v. Brown, 183 Colo. 356 , 516 P.2d 1129 (1973).

This section contemplates that, when in a divorce case, custody of a minor child is awarded to the wife, an order for its support may be made on the husband, and in proceeding to such order the court looks only to the future. Gourley v. Gourley, 101 Colo. 430 , 73 P.2d 1375 (1937).

It was not an abuse of discretion for trial court to award child support during the pendency of the dissolution proceeding. In re Atencio, 47 P.3d 718 (Colo. App. 2002).

Where plaintiff alleged that defendant was the father of the minor children of the parties, but had failed and refused to support them, and that they were in need of support which he has the means and ability to provide, if established by evidence, plaintiff would be entitled to appropriate relief. Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 149 Colo. 38 , 367 P.2d 594 (1961).

Person without funds or profitable employment not relieved of support obligation. Merely because a spouse desires to work on a long-range investment does not relieve him of his obligation to support his children, and the fact that a person is without funds and without profitable employment has been held not to preclude the allowance of reasonable alimony and support where nothing but a disinclination to work, regardless of the motive therefor, interferes with his ability to earn a reasonable living. Berge v. Berge, 33 Colo. App. 376, 522 P.2d 752 (1974), aff'd, 189 Colo. 103 , 536 P.2d 1135 (1975).

Where the oldest of three children of the parties was living with father, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award plaintiff support money for all of the children, since such award would require defendant to pay twice for support of child in his custody. Cohan v. Cohan, 150 Colo. 249 , 372 P.2d 149 (1962).

Custodial parent can be ordered to pay support to noncustodial parent under Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act. In re Fest, 742 P.2d 962 (Colo. App. 1987).

In order for child support to be calculated according to shared physical custody, sufficient evidence must be submitted that each parent keeps the children overnight for more than 25% of the time and that both parents contribute to the expenses of the children in addition to the payment of child support. In re Redford, 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).

Where there was an absence of evidence from husband establishing that he contributed to the child's financial needs, there was no basis for application of the shared custody formula under worksheet B. In re Antuna, 8 P.3d 589 (Colo. App. 2000).

Where a mother removed her child from the state and deliberately concealed her whereabouts from the father, and by her affirmative acts voluntarily assumed responsibility for the child's support for a period of several years, during which time it appears that the child wanted for nothing necessary to health, comfort, and welfare, the mother was not in a position to claim reimbursement for such support. Griffith v. Griffith, 152 Colo. 292 , 381 P.2d 455 (1963).

Where a father asserted that his right to direct and select the nature of the education of his son coexisted with the obligation to contribute to the costs of the education, it was held that it was for the divorced wife as custodian to make the decisions concerning the place and nature of the son's college education, subject only to the approval of the divorce court acting with due regard for the financial capabilities of the father. Van Orman v. Van Orman, 30 Colo. App. 177, 492 P.2d 81 (1971).

A divorced father did not have an absolute duty to pay for the college expenses of his minor child. Van Orman v. Van Orman, 30 Colo. App. 177, 492 P.2d 81 (1971).

When it had been properly demonstrated at trial that the welfare of the child would be served by further education at the college level, the father could properly be compelled to contribute to the costs of such education on a basis commensurate with the father's ability to pay until such time as the child attained majority or was otherwise emancipated. Van Orman v. Van Orman, 30 Colo. App. 177, 492 P.2d 81 (1971).

Travel expenses for a child, including the travel expenses of the guardians accompanying the child, shall be divided between the parents. Court did not apply the correct legal standard when it ordered the guardians to travel with juvenile at their own expense. Sidman v. Sidman, 240 P.3d 360 (Colo. App. 2009).

Award of retroactive child support is error. Since the court lacked proper jurisdiction to enter support orders until husband was personally served, its attempt to order retroactive child support was void. In re McKendry, 735 P.2d 908 (Colo. App. 1986).

Termination of support pursuant to decree. Absent a provision in the decree or a court order to the contrary, a father's duty to support pursuant to a decree which was paid to his ex-wife terminated with her death, although his common law and statutory duty of support continued. Application of Connolly, 761 P.2d 224 (Colo. App. 1988).

Phrase “each will contribute whatever may be necessary for the support of their children” creates a binding promise on part of father to contribute to children's financial support. In re Meisner, 807 P.2d 1205 (Colo. App. 1990).

“Absolute requirement” or “necessary requirement” is not the appropriate standard to apply in determining whether private school was an appropriate placement for a child. The court should consider whether private schooling meets the child's particular educational needs. In re Eaton, 894 P.2d 56 (Colo. App. 1995).

A motion to quash subpoenas issued to third persons allegedly contributing to support of children was properly granted where the voluntary donations of such parties had nothing to do with a defendant's duty to support children. Garrow v. Garrow, 152 Colo. 480 , 382 P.2d 809 (1963).

Support for adult child. A dissolution action is a proper proceeding to enforce continued support of an adult child. Koltay v. Koltay, 667 P.2d 1374 (Colo. 1983).

Law reviews. For article, “Calculation of Potential Income in Child Support Matters”, see 20 Colo. Law. 233 (1991). For article, “Postsecondary Education Costs: Forging Through a Legislative Labyrinth”, see 24 Colo. Law. 43 (1995).

Needs of the children are of paramount importance in determining child support obligations. Wright v. Wright, 182 Colo. 425 , 514 P.2d 73 (1973); In re Van Inwegen, 757 P.2d 1118 (Colo. App. 1988).

There is no mathematical formula for establishing a just and equitable property settlement or alimony or support. Carlson v. Carlson, 178 Colo. 283 , 497 P.2d 1006 (1972).

The guidelines for calculating child support require a court to calculate a monthly amount of child support based on the parties' combined adjusted gross income, adjust the child support based upon the needs of the children for extraordinary medical expenses and work-related child care costs, and allocate each parent's share based on the physical custody arrangements. In re Aldrich, 945 P.2d 1370 (Colo. 1997).

Adoption subsidy. An adoption subsidy should not be considered a credit against the noncustodial parent's child support obligation. The underlying intent of the child support statute is best served by declining to offset a noncustodial parent's support obligation by the amount of an adoption subsidy or to consider the subsidy as a factor that may diminish the child's basic needs within the meaning of subsection (13)(b). In re Bolding-Roberts, 113 P.3d 1265 (Colo. App. 2005).

An award of alimony and child support should bear a reasonable relationship to the needs of a wife and children. Vines v. Vines, 137 Colo. 449 , 326 P.2d 662 (1958).

Subsection (1)(a) authorizes the court to consider social security disability payments received on behalf of the children in calculating child support. In re Quintana, 30 P.3d 870 (Colo. App. 2001).

Social security disability benefits received by custodial parent for benefit of child on account of custodial parent's disability are not included in the custodial parent's gross income but are instead considered a financial resource of the child pursuant to subsections (2)(b)(I) and (11)(b). In re Anthony-Guillar, 207 P.3d 934 (Colo. App. 2009).

The extent to which the child's social security disability payment represents a “reduction in need” of the child is a question to be determined by the trial court based upon the totality of the circumstances. The court is not bound to deduct the entire amount of the child's social security disability payment from the basic support obligation. In re Anthony-Guillar, 207 P.3d 934 (Colo. App. 2009).

Social security survivor benefits should not be treated any differently than disability benefits. Thus, survivor benefits received by the wife in a representative capacity for son from previous marriage should not be included in wife's gross income for purposes of calculating husband's support obligation for daughter. In re Ross-Ooley, 251 P.3d 1221 (Colo. App. 2010).

Trial court did not err in excluding adoption subsidies and foster care payments from mother's gross income in child support considerations. These payments are income of the children on whose behalf the mother receives them and are not part of mother's income. In re Dunkle, 194 P.3d 462 (Colo. App. 2007).

Father is not entitled to an offset of his support obligation against the benefit amount he receives through his railroad retirement on behalf of his child since he retains the payments and he is the noncustodial parent. In re Zappanti, 80 P.3d 889 (Colo. App. 2003).

Subsection (1.5)(b)(I) does not require that expenses be absolutely necessary but only that they be reasonable. In re Eaton, 894 P.2d 56 (Colo. App. 1995); In re Elmer, 936 P.2d 617 (Colo. App. 1997).

Determination of conscionability of support provisions. To determine whether the child support provisions of a separation agreement which has been incorporated into a prior dissolution decree are fair, reasonable, and just, a trial court should consider and apply all the criteria provided by the general assembly for judicial evaluation of the provisions of property settlement agreements: the economic circumstances of the parties, § 14-10-112 ; the division of property, § 14-10-113(1) ; and the provisions for maintenance, § 14-10-114(1) . In re Carney, 631 P.2d 1173 (Colo. 1981).

In determining whether the terms of the original child support decree have become unconscionable, the trial court should apply the criteria set forth in subsection (1). In re Hughes, 635 P.2d 933 (Colo. App. 1981); In re Gomez, 728 P.2d 747 (Colo. App. 1986).

In a divorce action, particularly with respect to the care, custody, and maintenance of minor children, the court, at the time of making an award for the minor children, was obligated to appraise conditions as they exist at the time of the presentation. Brown v. Brown, 131 Colo. 467 , 283 P.2d 951 (1955); Watson v. Watson, 135 Colo. 296 , 310 P.2d 554 (1957); Garrow v. Garrow, 152 Colo. 480 , 382 P.2d 809 (1963); In re Serfoss, 642 P.2d 44 (Colo. App. 1981); In re McKendry, 735 P.2d 908 (Colo. App. 1986).

Parent's 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), aff'd, 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 of the father's available resources, is not valid. Van Orman v. Van Orman, 30 Colo. App. 177, 492 P.2d 81 (1971).

Finding as to earning capacity not confiscatory. Where the evidence supports the court's finding that the husband is capable of earning sums greatly in excess of his present net salary, although it appears that the court based its order on the present net income of the husband, the orders are not confiscatory. In re Anderson, 37 Colo. App. 55, 541 P.2d 1274 (1975).

Order that husband pay one-half of extraordinary medical and dental bills of the children, while unlimited as to amount or duration, was not confiscatory considering that the expenses were to be borne equally by each parent. In re Anderson, 37 Colo. App. 55, 541 P.2d 1274 (1975).

Factors considered in assessing propriety of child support provisions in separation agreement. In assessing the propriety of child support provisions in a separation agreement, the court must consider, in addition to unconscionability, other factors, such as the living standards the child would have enjoyed had the parties not dissolved the marriage and the physical and emotional well-being of the child. In re Brown, 626 P.2d 755 (Colo. App. 1981).

Child support obligations cannot be altered by agreement of the parents. Wright v. Wright, 182 Colo. 425 , 514 P.2d 73 (1973).

Child support cannot be based on financial resources of nonparent with whom child living. The factors to be considered in making a support award do not include the financial resources of a nonparent with whom the child is living. In re Conradson, 43 Colo. App. 432, 604 P.2d 701 (1979).

Estimates of children's expenses to be considered. A trial court should not determine the amount of child support to be paid by a husband based solely on some amount that it feels is commensurate with his income but should make the determination on evidence that includes estimates of the actual needs and expenses of the children involved. In re Berry, 660 P.2d 512 (Colo. App. 1983).

A court must consider and make findings concerning a reasonable pro rata portion of necessary general family expenses as “necessary for support of the child.” In re Klein, 671 P.2d 1345 (Colo. App. 1983).

Standard of living employed in determination of child support. Where the evidence shows that the standard of living at the time of separation in all probability would have continued but for the dissolution, that is the standard of living the court must employ in its determination of child support. In re Klien, 671 P.2d 1345 (Colo. App. 1983).

This section does not require specific findings of fact concerning children's assets, but only that, before determining the amount of support to be paid by a parent, the court consider, among other things the financial resources of the child. In re Wolfert, 42 Colo. App. 433, 598 P.2d 524 (1979).

Obligation of support not affected by gifts or transfers. The intent of the uniform act, § 11-50-101 et seq., is to allow custodians to disburse funds whether or not the children are adequately supported. Gifts under that act do nothing to relieve a parent of the separate duty to support the children, nor does that act authorize the custodian to disburse the funds as a means of fulfilling the parent's obligation of support. In re Wolfert, 42 Colo. App. 433, 598 P.2d 524 (1979).

Where a parent or parents voluntarily make gifts to children during the parents' marriage and the gifts are not in fulfillment of a court order to pay support, and where the parents are, at the time of dissolution of the marriage, able to meet their support obligations, the court may order that such gifts not be used to reduce the legal obligation of support. This rule assumes that the court has properly considered the financial resources of the children as required by subsection (1), before ordering the amount of support to be paid by the parents. In re Wolfert, 42 Colo. App. 433, 598 P.2d 524 (1979).

Court may order life insurance naming children as beneficiaries be maintained by parent obligated to pay child support, just as its provisions for child support now extend beyond the death of the parent, unless otherwise provided. In re Icke, 35 Colo. App. 60, 530 P.2d 1001 (1974), aff'd, 189 Colo. 319 , 540 P.2d 1076 (1975).

Award of additional $6,000 for “recreational opportunities” for children was fairly embraced within the factors to be considered by court in dividing marital property and did not create a separate “recreational fund” for the needs of the children in the nature of child support. In re Jackson, 698 P.2d 1347 (Colo. 1985).

The judgment in the divorce action did not determine the limits of the husband's obligation to support the children, and the children were not parties to that action, and their rights were not concluded thereby. Scheer v. District Court, 147 Colo. 265 , 363 P.2d 1059 (1961).

Where there was no verification of the father's income as required by this section, the trial court was directed to take additional evidence to determine the income and to modify the support order. In re Velasquez, 773 P.2d 635 (Colo. App. 1989).

Trial court may draw inference that parent was concealing income, where parent refused to make a willing disclosure of financial status. In re Sgarlatti, 801 P.2d 18 (Colo. App. 1990).

Although the general assembly specifically provided for the use of extrapolation for combined gross income amounts falling between amounts shown in the guideline schedule, it did not provide for the use of extrapolation when combined gross incomes fall above or below the guideline schedule. In re Van Inwegen, 757 P.2d 1118 (Colo. App. 1988).

Section guidelines applicable in determination of amount of modified award despite fact that guidelines were enacted after the original support order. In re Anderson, 761 P.2d 293 (Colo. App. 1988).

Application of new child support guidelines resulting in more than a ten percent change in support due creates a rebuttable presumption that existing support award must be modified. In re Pugliese, 761 P.2d 277 (Colo. App. 1988).

The general assembly intended income imputation to be an important exception to the normal rule of computation based on actual gross income of the parent. This exception applies when the parent shirks his or her child support obligation by unreasonably foregoing higher paying employment that he or she could obtain. The legislature meant this exception to prevent detriment to children by deterring parents from making employment choices that do not account for their children's welfare. Nevertheless, the general assembly intended courts to approach income imputation with caution. People v. Martinez, 70 P.3d 474 (Colo. 2003).

Imputing to voluntarily unemployed wife an income equal to income that of a person employed at the minimum wage even though evidence indicated that wife had been offered a higher paying job was not abuse of court's discretion given evidence of wife's ill health and problems in obtaining day care. In re Beyer, 789 P.2d 468 (Colo. App. 1989).

Imputing of full-time income to mother working part-time was error where mother did not voluntarily choose part-time employment but was required to stay home during the day to care for one of her children who had Downs syndrome. In re Pote, 847 P.2d 246 (Colo. App. 1993).

Court abused its discretion in finding that mother's underemployment was voluntary where mother worked only 32 hours per week so that she would have time to take the parties' child, who had cerebral palsy, to physical therapy. In re Foss, 30 P.3d 850 (Colo. App. 2000).

Interest was properly included in calculation of imputed income. In re Jaeger, 883 P.2d 577 (Colo. App. 1994).

“Overtime”, in determination of parent's gross income (prior to 1996 amendment), does not include income from “extra” jobs. In re Marson, 929 P.2d 51 (Colo. App. 1996).

It was proper for the trial court to find that the overtime worked by father was required and to include such income within the father's gross income for the following reasons: (1) In his position as equity owner, director, and officer of the family-owned corporation, he was his own supervisor; (2) the evidence established, and the court found, that his position as vice-president and job-site foreman required that he work more than other employees as evidenced by his own testimony that his job as foreman could not always be done in a 40-hour week; and (3) the evidence established that the reason the father was required to work twenty to 25 hours of overtime per week was to assure that the jobs for which he was responsible would be completed in a timely fashion in order to avoid penalties that would work a direct financial disadvantage to the father. In re Rice & Foutch, 987 P.2d 947 (Colo. App. 1999).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding mother's overtime pay from the determination of her gross income. Mother chose to work extra hours voluntarily, and the overtime was not required as a condition of her employment. In re Dunkle, 194 P.3d 462 (Colo. App. 2007).

Section imposes no burden on one parent to prove that an available job exists for the other parent. Rather, the determination of income hinges on the ability of the parent to perform work. In re Mackey, 940 P.2d 1112 (Colo. App. 1997).

Court is merely required by subsection (7)(b)(I) to determine potential income and statute imposes no burden on one parent to prove that an available job exists for the other parent or that a particular job is available. In re Bregar, 952 P.2d 783 (Colo. App. 1997).

In order to impute income based upon a parent's voluntary underemployment, the trial court must examine all relevant factors bearing on whether the parent is shirking his or her child support obligation by unreasonably foregoing higher paying employment that he or she could obtain, and, if the parent is, the trial court must determine what he or she can reasonably earn and contribute to the child's support. If the trial court does not find that the parent is shirking his or her child support obligation by unreasonably foregoing higher paying employment, the court should calculate the amount of child support from actual gross income only. People v. Martinez, 70 P.3d 474 (Colo. 2003).

In determining if a parent is voluntarily underemployed, the factors the court may consider may include: The firing and post-firing conduct of the parent; the amount of time the parent spent looking for a job of equal caliber before accepting a lower paying job; whether the parent refused an offer of employment at a higher salary; whether the parent sought a job in the field in which he or she has experience and training; the availability of jobs for a person with the parent's level of education, training, and skills; the prevailing wage rates in the region; the parent's prior employment experience and history; and the parent's history of child support payment. People v. Martinez, 70 P.3d 474 (Colo. 2003).

The court must make findings sufficient to support a determination of underemployment. Imputing support without factual findings supporting a determination of underemployment is in error. In re Martin, 42 P.3d 75 (Colo. App. 2002); In re Garrett, 2018 COA 154 , 444 P.3d 812.

Father not underemployed where mother presented no evidence that employment at income previously earned by father was available to him, no evidence of alternative employment at a higher level of remuneration than he presently earned, and no evidence that support to the children had been unreasonably reduced. In re Campbell, 905 P.2d 19 (Colo. App. 1995).

Trial court properly found father was voluntarily underemployed where father, a licensed attorney, had opted for inactive status and worked seasonally for an apple orchard at $10 per hour. In re Elmer, 936 P.2d 617 (Colo. App. 1997).

Trial court properly declined to find that father was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed where he voluntarily refused to file a claim for damages resulting from a work-related accident. In re England, 997 P.2d 1288 (Colo. App. 1999).

Loss of employment due to addiction and re-employment at a lower wage does not constitute voluntary underemployment; however, a person who has been involuntarily terminated from a position for drug use may subsequently become voluntarily unemployed or underemployed based on actions taken after the termination. In re Atencio, 47 P.3d 718 (Colo. App. 2002).

The trial court erroneously computed child support by relying solely upon the husband's income and disregarding the wife's statutory obligation to contribute to the child's support. If both parents have actual income, or a reasonable ability to earn income, it is erroneous as a matter of law to allocate the support obligation to one parent. In re Sewell, 817 P.2d 594 (Colo. App. 1991).

In computing child support, the trial court erred in failing to consider either the wife's income as represented by the monthly maintenance award or her ability to earn income from the marital property distributed to her under the court's decree. In re Sewell, 817 P.2d 594 (Colo. App. 1991).

For purposes of child support, father's income, as derived from the exercise of stock options, is limited to the difference between his purchase price of the optioned stock and the price at which he then sold it. In re Campbell, 905 P.2d 19 (Colo. App. 1995).

Court should initially include the amount of a capital gain as a component of gross income for the year in which the gain was received. Thereafter, the court has authority to deviate from the child support guidelines if their application would be inequitable, unjust, or inappropriate. In re Zisch, 967 P.2d 199 (Colo. App. 1998).

When considering capital gains from the sale of property awarded in a property division, the court shall include in gross income only those capital gains realized from post-property division appreciation in the property. In re Upson, 991 P.2d 341 (Colo. App. 1999).

Court erred in not deducting ordinary and necessary expenses from capital gains when self-employed. For purposes of determining a person's gross income, when the person was self-employed as a builder of custom homes, ordinary and necessary expenses incurred to sell property should have been deducted from the person's gross income. In re Glenn, 60 P.3d 775 (Colo. App. 2002).

Husband's taxable distributions from a subchapter S corporation owned wholly by him and two partners, one of whom had left, while not properly considered as extra income, should have been included as gross income, less ordinary and necessary business expenses. In re Upson, 991 P.2d 341 (Colo. App. 1999).

In determining monthly child support obligation for the period following the year in which a capital gain is received, the court should impute as income to the party a rate of return that the net capital gain, after taxes, can reasonably be expected to generate. In re Zisch, 967 P.2d 199 (Colo. App. 1998).

Subsection (7)(a) does not provide for deduction of federal and state income taxes in computing gross income, including from lottery winnings, for purposes of calculating child support. In re Bohn, 8 P.3d 539 (Colo. App. 2000).

The amount received as gross income from lottery winnings is used to calculate child support for the year in which the income is received. Thereafter, if a parent invests a portion of the funds which were received as income in one year, any interest earned in the subsequent years is properly included as gross income for purposes of calculating child support in those years. In re Bohn, 8 P.3d 539 (Colo. App. 2000).

Income from an irrevocable trust of which wife was beneficiary should not be omitted from wife's gross income for purposes of calculating child support, even though the trial court correctly declined to treat the income as property subject to division. In re Pooley, 996 P.2d 230 (Colo. App. 1998).

If a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, child support must be based on the parent's potential income. While a parent is entitled to remain underemployed, the other parent's child support obligation may not be increased as a result. In re Mackey, 940 P.2d 1112 (Colo. App. 1997).

The magistrate did not err in imputing to the father the annual income he had earned prior to his resignation. The evidence amply supports the magistrate's determination that the father quit his job because he won the lottery, that he was physically capable of working but was voluntarily unemployed, and that his decision to resign from his job was not a good faith career choice. In re McCord, 910 P.2d 85 (Colo. App. 1995).

Trial court did not err in imputing income to husband absent findings regarding involuntary job loss, ability to pay, and needs of the child. Although the child's needs may be considered in determining the amount of child support that must be paid at a given level of income, nothing in subsection (7) suggests that the child's needs are relevant to the determination of a parent's income. In re Yates, 148 P.3d 304 (Colo. App. 2006).

Mother's decision to accept travel agency job, rather than to collect unemployment benefits until she found a higher paying job, was a good faith career choice and she therefore was not voluntarily underemployed. In re McCord, 910 P.2d 85 (Colo. App. 1995).

Trial court has the prerogative to determine that husband's decision to leave the practice of law and pursue cattle ranching does not fit the exceptions set forth in subsection (7)(b)(III)(B), where husband argued the change was a good faith career choice, was not intended to reduce the support available to his children, and did not unreasonably reduce support. In re Bregar, 952 P.2d 783 (Colo. App. 1997).

Person who is involuntarily terminated from his position due to his own misconduct is not voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. Whether a person lost a job because of willful or knowing misconduct is not determinative of whether the person is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. What is determinative is the person's subsequent course of action and decision making. A person who has been involuntarily terminated from a position may thereafter become voluntarily unemployed or underemployed by not attempting in good faith to obtain new employment at a comparable salary or by refusing to accept suitable employment offers. People ex rel. J.R.T., 55 P.3d 217 (Colo. App. 2002), aff'd sub nom. People v. Martinez, 70 P.3d 474 (Colo. 2003).

“Support available to a child” in subsection (7)(b)(III)(B) is not synonymous with “basic child support obligation” elsewhere in this section. “Basic child support obligation”, as defined in subsection (10), typically involves consideration of both parties' respective incomes. “Support available to a child” in subsection (7)(b)(III)(B), however, focuses on the career decision and any associated income change of the putatively underemployed parent that affects his or her ability to provide child support. People ex rel. Cerda v. Walker, 32 P.3d 628 (Colo. App. 2001).

Thus, if the mother has improved her ability to provide child support, it does not necessarily mean that the father's voluntary underemployment did not unreasonably reduce his ability to provide child support. Because both parents have a duty to support a child to the best of their abilities, an increase in one parent's ability to provide child support cannot serve as justification for the other parent's unreasonable reduction in his or her ability to provide child support. People ex rel. Cerda v. Walker, 32 P.3d 628 (Colo. App. 2001).

In computing parental income for purposes of establishing child support payments, child support for other dependents which a parent is legally obligated to pay, shall be deducted, and such deduction is not limited to amounts actually paid pursuant to such obligation. In re Eze, 856 P.2d 75 (Colo. App. 1993).

The intent of this section is that a parent who is legally responsible for the support of other children be given a deduction, within statutory guidelines, for child support actually paid, regardless whether an order for that support had been entered. Thus, when a prior support order does not reflect the parent's full legal responsibility for support, the parent is entitled to a deduction under paragraph (d.5) of subsection (7), instead of under paragraph (d), in determining the parent's gross income. In re K.M.T., 33 P.3d 1276 (Colo. App. 2001).

Adequate proof of child support obligations actually paid for other dependents is required when computing parental income for the purpose of establishing child support for present dependents. In re Dickson, 983 P.2d 44 (Colo. App. 1998).

“Maintenance actually paid by a parent”, as used in subsection (10)(a)(II), includes payments made by a parent to a former spouse. It is not limited to payments made to the mother of the child in the paternity proceedings before the court; it includes all maintenance payments made by a parent. In Interest of A.R.W., 903 P.2d 10 (Colo. App. 1994).

The court must consider the father's and the child's financial resources in addition to considering the mother's resources in deciding the appropriate amount of the parents' contributions to the child's college expenses. In re Eaton, 894 P.2d 56 (Colo. App. 1995) (decided under law in effect prior to 1993 amendment).

Court did not err in including $350 rent in father's gross income without excluding allowable business deductions since record revealed nothing to warrant reversal of the trial court's implicit determination that any claimed expenses were not necessary or required to produce the rental income in question. In re Cropper, 895 P.2d 1158 (Colo. App. 1995).

Trial court should have considered mother's detailed evidence of the children's living expenses and the fact that father provided and fully paid for a residence for the children in determining the child support obligation, given the difficulty in applying Colorado child support guidelines to the needs of children in Russia. People ex rel. A.K., 72 P.3d 402 (Colo. App. 2003).

Once the requisites for shared physical custody have been established, subsection (10)(c) requires that the child support obligation be adjusted by the mathematical formula contained in subsection (14)(b). In re Redford, 776 P.2d 1149 (Colo. App. 1989).

If trial court deviates from the guidelines, it is required to make findings that application of the guidelines would be inequitable and specifying the reasons for the deviation. Thus, when court deviated from guidelines, it was required to find either that one of the relevant factors in subsection (1) applied or that the husband did not make contributions to the child's expenses beyond what he was obligated to pay in child support. In re Marshall, 781 P.2d 177 (Colo. App. 1989), cert. denied, 794 P.2d 1011 (Colo. 1990).

Modification of award required where trial court deviates from guidelines but fails to make findings required by subsection (3)(a). In re Sgarlatti, 801 P.2d 18 (Colo. App. 1990).

Trial court must make provision for expense of transportation of child between homes of parents, which expense is to be divided between parents in proportion to their adjusted gross income. In re Marshall, 781 P.2d 177 (Colo. App. 1989), cert. denied, 794 P.2d 1011 (Colo. 1990); In re Sgarlatti, 801 P.2d 18 (Colo. App. 1990).

Trial court did not err in including transportation expenses in the child support calculation before those expenses were actually known since there was no dispute as to the parents' income and the magistrate was free to adopt the percentage share of the father's income as shown in the father's computation. In re Andersen, 895 P.2d 1161 (Colo. App. 1995).

Husband's personal injury settlement payments are a financial resource that constitutes “gross income” under the child support guidelines. In re Fain, 794 P.2d 1086 (Colo. App. 1990).

Proper for court to base child support calculation on father's monthly income from his railroad annuity despite that income deriving from a previously divided asset since the property division does not change the status of those monthly payments as an income source to be considered in determining the husband's child support obligation. In re Zappanti, 80 P.3d 889 (Colo. App. 2003).

For investments, income is limited to the gain on the original investment. However, a party's characterization of payments as a return on investment is not binding on the court. In re Laughlin, 932 P.2d 858 (Colo. App. 1997).

Trial court did not err in using a two-year average of father's investment income when calculating father's overall income for the purposes of calculating child support. In re Rice and Foutch, 987 P.2d 947 (Colo. App. 1999).

No error in the trial court's conclusion that father's “actual gross income” included interest or dividends which had accrued to his IRA but which he had not withdrawn. The use of the word “actual” in subsection (7)(a) does not limit gross income to that “actually received”. In re Tessmer, 903 P.2d 1194 (Colo. App. 1995).

Trial court correctly excluded father's voluntary enhanced retirement program (VERP) benefit from calculation of his gross income. In determining whether the VERP benefit constitutes income for child support purposes, the court must answer the following questions: (1) Is the VERP benefit severance pay? (2) Is the VERP benefit an employer contribution to pension and retirement benefits? (3) Should an undistributed employer contribution be treated as income? (4) Does father's option to elect a lump sum distribution or monthly annuity payments of his retirement account, including the VERP benefit, mean that the VERP benefit should be credited as income? In re Mugge, 66 P.3d 207 (Colo. App. 2003).

The requirements that father voluntarily retire rather than be terminated and that he provide a general release of the employer distinguish the VERP benefit from a typical severance pay program, and thus the VERP benefit was not severance pay includable within the statutory definition of gross income. In re Mugge, 66 P.3d 207 (Colo. App. 2003).

The employer denominated the VERP benefit as a retirement benefit, credited the benefit to the father's retirement account in its pension plan, and calculated the amount using age and years of service, therefore the VERP benefit was an employer-contributed pension or retirement benefit. In re Mugge, 66 P.3d 207 (Colo. App. 2003).

Because the employer determined the amounts of pension plan contributions and the employees did not have the option of directly receiving the amounts as wages, prior to any distribution, the employer's VERP contribution to father's account in its pension plan did not constitute gross income for consideration under the child support guidelines. In re Mugge, 66 P.3d 207 (Colo. App. 2003).

VERP benefit should not be treated as gross income for child support purposes merely because father could have elected a lump sum distribution or monthly annuity payments instead of rolling the benefit over into another qualified pension plan. In re Mugge, 66 P.3d 207 (Colo. App. 2003).

Employer contributions to father's insurance plans not income for child support purposes. Similar to employer retirement plan contributions, father did not have the option to take the contributions as wages and use them for general living expenses, so such contributions are not properly considered income for purposes of the child support calculation. In re Davis, 252 P.3d 530 (Colo. App. 2011).

Deferred compensation in father's nonqualified retirement plan is not income for child support purposes under the Uniform Parentage Act. Applying the definition of income in this section, the court determined that it was not income because father did not have the ability to use it to pay his expenses, including child support. Father was not vested in the plan, there was no account in his name, the plan would pay only upon retirement if certain conditions were met, and father would forfeit the plan if he was fired, quit, or retired before age sixty-five, and once retired, it would pay out over 10 years. In re N.J.C., 2019 COA 153 M, 467 P.3d 1209.

Extraordinary medical expenses were required to be divided between the parties in direct proportion to their adjusted gross income and added to the basic child support, even where the child's condition existed and was known at the time of the original agreement where the parties agreed to each pay one-half of these expenses. In re Nielsen, 794 P.2d 1097 (Colo. App. 1990).

Meaning of “adjusted gross income”. Definition of “adjusted gross income” in subsection (10)(a) does not provide for the deduction of federal and state income taxes or FICA taxes in computation for child support purposes. In re Baroni, 781 P.2d 191 (Colo. App. 1989).

The fact that certain items may be deductible on a party's federal income tax return does not require exclusion from gross income under the child support guideline. In re Eaton, 894 P.2d 56 (Colo. App. 1995).

Trial court did not err in determining that “gross income” included the foreign service premium, the commodities and services allowance, and the expatriate tax equalization payment made to compensate person for the cost of living in a foreign locale. In re Stress, 939 P.2d 500 (Colo. App. 1997).

Meaning of “extraordinary medical expenses”. Extraordinary medical expenses, as defined in subsection (12)(b), must be “uninsured”. Where psychological counseling services were insured expenses under the father's medical insurance plan, trial court erred in requiring him to pay for child's counseling by a psychologist not participating in the plan absent a finding that such counseling was not adequately or reasonably covered by the plan. In re Ahrens, 847 P.2d 257 (Colo. App. 1993).

A parent's obligation for extraordinary medical expenses is an integral part of the child support obligation and, as such, is nondischargeable in bankruptcy. Parent who provided letter to court asserting the obligation had been discharged was ordered to pay for his share of the extraordinary medical expenses on behalf of the children. In re Campbell, 140 P.3d 320 (Colo. App. 2006).

Basic allowance for quarters (BAQ) constitutes an in-kind payment that is income for child support purposes. In re Long, 921 P.2d 67 (Colo. App. 1996).

Military housing and food allowances are part of gross income under the plain language of subsection (5)(a)(I)(X). In re Parental Responsibilities of L.K.Y., 2013 COA 108 , 410 P.3d 492.

Military housing and food allowances that are not paid to children or on behalf of the children but rather are paid to the parent as part of parent's salary should not be deducted under subsection (11)(b) as financial resources of the children despite the fact that the parent is the recipient of temporary child support. In re Parental Responsibilities of L.K.Y., 2013 COA 108 , 410 P.3d 492.

Increased cost for the addition of teenage son to automobile insurance is not an extraordinary expense under subsection (13). In re Long, 921 P.2d 67 (Colo. App. 1996).

Court does not have authority to impute a gross income where actual income is tax exempt. Rather the amount received each month shall be deemed to be a gross income. In re Fain, 794 P.2d 1986 (Colo. App. 1990).

“Gross” income for purposes of calculating child support can include the amount of income an asset could reasonably be expected to generate even if that asset has been consumed prior to the support determination. In re Laughlin, 932 P.2d 858 (Colo. App. 1997).

The burden is upon the parent contesting the support order to prove that a deviation from the presumptive award is both reasonable and necessary. In re Baroni, 781 P.2d 191 (Colo. App. 1989).

No automatic adjustment of gross income for non-ordered support. Non-ordered child support payments to others are not to be determined by a mechanical application of the child support schedule. Rather the impact of payment of non-ordered obligations must be evaluated as provided in subsection (3)(a). People in Interest of C.D., 767 P.2d 809 (Colo. App. 1989).

Party alleging that payment of non-ordered support obligation requires deviation from presumptive award determined under statutory guidelines has burden to prove the claim. Deviation from guidelines must be shown reasonable and necessary considering certain enumerated factors. People in Interest of C.D., 767 P.2d 809 (Colo. App. 1989).

An agreement of the parties regarding child support, custody, and visitation does not bind the court, and the court must review child support guidelines to determine the adequacy of the child support agreement of the parties. In re Micaletti, 796 P.2d 54 (Colo. App. 1990).

Trial court's apportionment of costs for child's guardian ad litem upheld where court apportioned costs between mother and father on the basis of the underemployed mother's potential income. Weber v. Wallace, 789 P.2d 427 (Colo. App. 1989).

Specific written or oral findings must be made by the court to support deviation from the child support amounts specified by the statutory schedule, and this applies to approving a stipulation of the parties. In re Miller, 790 P.2d 890 (Colo. App. 1990); In Interest of D.R.V., 885 P.2d 351 (Colo. App. 1994).

Where the parties' gross income exceeded the uppermost level of income scheduled in the guidelines and the minimum child support amount is presumed to be set forth in the highest level in the guidelines, this presumption may be rebutted, and the court must exercise discretion considering the financial resources of both parents and the children, the physical and emotional condition of the children and their educational needs, the needs of the noncustodial parent, and the standard of living that the children would have enjoyed had the parents' marriage not been dissolved. In re Schwaab & (Colo. App. 1999), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 25 P.3d 28 (Colo. 2001).

Where parties' gross income exceeded the uppermost level of income in the guidelines, trial court was required to calculate the minimum presumptive amount of support and, in addition, translate the children's higher standard of living into specific monetary requirements. In re Bookout, 833 P.2d 800 (Colo. App. 1990), cert. denied, 846 P.2d 189 (Colo. 1993).

There is a rebuttable presumption that the basic child support obligation at the upper level of the guidelines is the minimum presumptive amount of support. Where father won five million dollars in the Colorado state lottery and the parties' adjusted gross incomes thereafter exceeded the uppermost levels of the guidelines, the court remanded the case for a redetermination of child support. In re Foss, 30 P.3d 850 (Colo. App. 2000).

Where parties' income exceeded the highest combined gross income level set out in the guidelines, the gross disparity in their incomes may explain the initial basis for deviation by the court, but additional findings concerning the needs of the children must be entered to establish the amount of deviation ordered. In re Upson, 991 P.2d 341 (Colo. App. 1999).

Where parties' income exceeded the highest combined gross income level set forth in the guidelines, the amount set for child support at the highest combined gross income level reflects the minimum, not maximum, presumptive amount. In such circumstances, the court may use its discretion to determine a higher amount based on the factors set forth in subsection (2)(b). In re Boettcher, 2018 COA 34 , 454 P.3d 321, aff'd, 2019 CO 81, 449 P.3d 382.

Because the children's needs are of paramount importance in determining the child support obligation, in calculating the appropriate amount of child support, the court should look at, among other things, the costs of food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education, and recreational costs at the level enjoyed before the dissolution. In re Schwaab & Rollins, 794 P.2d 1112 (Colo. App. 1990).

Viewing the statute as a whole, the means of meeting the “particular educational needs of a child” are not limited to providing private school only when a child has a learning disability or otherwise qualifies for a program of special education. In re Payan, 890 P.2d 264 (Colo. App. 1995).

Where the mother has sole custody of the three children, and there is a different visitation schedule for each child, in deciding whether the shared custody calculation for child support is applicable, the court must calculate the number of overnight stays for each child, divide each by three and total the results to determine the total amount of time the father spends with the children. If the cumulative number of overnights is less than 25% of the year, the shared custody calculation is inapplicable. In re Quam, 813 P.2d 833 (Colo. App. 1991).

Court erred in beginning the child support calculation for children with different parenting time schedules who are in the mother's primary care by using a separate worksheet for each child. This error effectively treated each child as an only child under the guidelines and resulted in an inflated child support amount. The court did not enter sufficient findings to support a deviation from the presumed amount under the guidelines. In re Wells, 252 P.3d 1212 (Colo. App. 2011).

Each parent in a dissolution proceeding has the obligation to support their children to the best of their abilities, and the court may determine that one parent's failure to find or keep a job is a voluntary refusal to carry out a support obligation. In re Nordahl, 834 P.2d 838 (Colo. App. 1992).

Costs of high school extracurricular activities such as cheerleading, driver's education, sports, and debate do not qualify as higher educational expenses under subsection (13). In re Ansay, 839 P.2d 527 (Colo. App. 1992).

Inclusion of ice skating fees in the support calculation as a reasonable and necessary expense was warranted. In re Laughlin, 932 P.2d 858 (Colo. App. 1997).

Trial court erred in ordering parent to pay percentage of children's estimated educational expenses without specifying sum to be paid. In re Pollock, 881 P.2d 470 (Colo. App. 1994).

Because of a lack of certainty of future bonuses, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to estimate the amount of any possible future bonuses for present support purposes. In re Finer, 920 P.2d 325 (Colo. App. 1996).

The trial court did not err in not considering income from the parties' mentally retarded adult son in calculating child support obligation. The trial court is not bound to deduct automatically the amount of a child's income from the basic child support obligation when that income does not reduce the need for parental support. In re Folwell, 910 P.2d 91 (Colo. App. 1995).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion setting appropriate amount of child support when it included the child's pro rata share of the standard and ongoing living expenses in wife's monthly needs. In re Balanson, 996 P.2d 213 (Colo. App. 1999), aff'd, 25 P.3d 28 (Colo. 2001).

The first $250 of uninsured medical expenses per child per year is included in the shared basic child support obligation of parents with equal parenting time. The trial court properly rejected father's argument that wife should pay the first $250 in uninsured medical expenses per year per child. Each party must pay uninsured medical expenses incurred during their parenting time until the child's expenses for the year exceed $250, at which time a parent may seek reimbursement from the other for the proportional share of expenses incurred for the child. A court could deviate from the guidelines if one parent were likely to incur all of these expenses despite shared equal parenting time. In re Alvis, 2019 COA 97 , 446 P.3d 963.

Court did not err in failing to include husband's GI bill tuition assistance and stipend for books and supplies in husband's income for purposes of calculating child support. The tuition payment was not available for husband's discretionary use or to reduce living expenses and would in no discernable way assist him in paying maintenance or child support. In re Tooker, 2019 COA 83 , 444 P.3d 856.

For the purposes of calculating child support obligation, father's veteran's disability benefits fall within the broad definition of gross income, despite being nontaxable. In re M.E.R-L., 2020 COA 173 , __ P.3d __.

Determination of child support is in the sound discretion of the trial court, and in the absence of an abuse of that discretion, not shown here, it will not be disturbed on review. Brigham v. Brigham, 141 Colo. 41 , 346 P.2d 302 (1959); Lanz v. Lanz, 143 Colo. 73 , 351 P.2d 845 (1960); Huber v. Huber, 143 Colo. 255 , 353 P.2d 379 (1960); Carlson v. Carlson, 178 Colo. 283 , 497 P.2d 1006 (1972); Ferguson v. Ferguson, Colo. App. , 507 P.2d 1110 (1973); Berge v. Berge, 33 Colo. App. 376, 522 P.2d 752 (1974), aff'd, 189 Colo. 103 , 536 P.2d 1135 (1975); In re Krise, 660 P.2d 920 (Colo. App. 1983); In re Garcia, 695 P.2d 774 (Colo. App. 1984); In re Pierce, 720 P.2d 591 (Colo. App. 1985).

Alimony, support, and property settlement issues were formerly considered together to determine whether the court had abused its discretion, and in making the determination, the court would consider a variety of factors, including whether the property was acquired before or after marriage, the efforts and attitudes of the parties towards its accumulation, the respective ages and earning abilities of the parties, the conduct of the parties during the marriage, the duration of the marriage, their stations in life, their health and physical condition, the necessities of the parties, their financial condition, and other relevant circumstances. Carlson v. Carlson, 178 Colo. 283 , 497 P.2d 1006 (1972).

Court may consider only relevant provisions of section. In awarding child support, a trial court is obligated to consider only the relevant provisions of this section. It commits reversible error by considering matters related to adoption. In re Ashlock, 629 P.2d 1108 (Colo. App. 1981).

In granting a divorce a court has no authority under the statute to decree that a part of the property of the husband shall be the sole property of his children. Menor v. Menor, 154 Colo. 475 , 391 P.2d 473 (1964); Giambrocco v. Giambrocco, 161 Colo. 510 , 423 P.2d 328 (1967).

The trial court was without authority to direct the husband to give to each of his children a share in a future estate which he may or may not acquire, because the obligation of the defendant is to provide reasonable support for his children according to their need, within the range of his ability, and a father of children is under no obligation to settle any property upon his children, or to deed them an interest in any asset; on the contrary he may by will or deed or other voluntary act disinherit a child if he sees fit to do so. Menor v. Menor, 154 Colo. 475 , 391 P.2d 473 (1964); Giambrocco v. Giambrocco, 161 Colo. 510 , 423 P.2d 328 (1967).

Former husband may not discover the amount of former wife's current husband's income but may discover the existence of former wife's income in the form of regular payments made to the former wife by her current husband. In re Nimmo, 891 P.2d 1002 (Colo. 1995).

Although trial court abused its discretion in modifying child support and cause was remanded upon appeal, the trial court order for child support remained in full force and effect pending entry of a new support order. In re Van Inwegen, 757 P.2d 1118 (Colo. App. 1988).

Court improperly ordered noncustodial mother to make support payments when the court made a finding that the mother did not have the financial ability to pay child support. In re Jarman, 752 P.2d 1068 (Colo. App. 1988).

There is a rebuttable presumption in any action to establish or modify child support that $1,000 is the minimum presumptive amount of child support for one child when the parental combined income exceeds the uppermost levels of the guideline; however, the trial court may exercise its discretion and choose to set a different amount after consideration of all relevant factors. In re Van Inwegen, 757 P.2d 1118 (Colo. App. 1988).

As a matter of law, the trial court may not initially refuse to apply child support guidelines. In re Thornton, 802 P.2d 1194 (Colo. App. 1990).

Cost of a nanny may be included in the calculation of child support. S.F.E. in Interest of T.I.E., 981 P.2d 642 (Colo. App. 1998).

Trial court erred in failing to divide uninsured medical expenses in proportion to parents' adjusted gross incomes without making necessary findings to support deviation from guidelines. In re Pollock, 881 P.2d 470 (Colo. App. 1994).

The trial court has discretion to order that the reasonable and necessary costs of a child's attendance at a private school be divided between the parents in proportion to their income. In re Elmer, 936 P.2d 617 (Colo. App. 1997) (decided prior to 1998 amendment to subsection (13)(a)(II)); In re West, 94 P.3d 1248 (Colo. App. 2004).

Attendance at a private school may be approved where it is necessary to meet the particular educational needs of the child. In re West, 94 P.3d 1248 (Colo. App. 2004).

In determining whether the children's parochial school tuition should be approved prospectively as a reasonable and necessary expense, the court should consider the parents' income, the standard of living that the children would have enjoyed if the parents' marriage had not been dissolved, and other factors as appropriate. In re West, 94 P.3d 1248 (Colo. App. 2004).

The trial court exceeded its authority in ordering the husband to fund an educational trust for the benefit of the parties' son. The courts have been granted no authority to order the creation of a trust for the benefit of minor children. In re Sewell, 817 P.2d 594 (Colo. App. 1991).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the husband to pay all college expenses of the parties' son. Use of word “divided” in subsection (13) does not imply that both parents must contribute to each item of support; court is given discretion in subsection (1) to order “either or both” parents to pay support. In re Huff, 834 P.2d 244 (Colo. 1992) (decided under law in effect prior to enactment of subsection (1.5), dealing specifically with postsecondary education support).

A parent may also be required to contribute to the costs associated with a child's athletic activities in some cases. The child's particular needs and predissolution standard of living are among the factors to be considered by the court. In re West, 94 P.3d 1248 (Colo. App. 2004).

Psychiatric therapy for child was properly included as an extraordinary medical expense in an order under this section. In re Elmer, 936 P.2d 617 (Colo. App. 1997).

Trial court erred in allocating to father all of child's travel expenses for visitation, rather than proportionately allocating them between the parties, in absence of finding that such allocation was appropriate. In re Elmer, 936 P.2d 617 (Colo. App. 1997) (decided prior to 1998 amendment to subsection (13)(a)(II)).

Child support guideline does not provide for allocation between the parties of a parent's travel expenses. In re Elmer, 936 P.2d 617 (Colo. App. 1997) (decided prior to 1998 amendment to subsection (13)(a)(II)).

Adjustment of the child support amount to allow for transportation expenses is not limited to expenses incurred in long distance or interstate travel and does apply to automobile expenses incurred in transporting a child between the homes of the parents. In re L.F., 56 P.3d 1249 (Colo. App. 2002).

Award constituted an application of, and not a deviation from, the guidelines where the evidence and the findings were sufficient to support only a partial offset of the child's income for her pro rata share of reasonable and necessary monthly expenses as well as the maintenance of a fund for vacations, one-time purchases, and other occasional expenses. In re Cropper, 895 P.2d 1158 (Colo. App. 1995).

The burden is upon the parent contesting the support order to prove that a deviation from the presumptive award is both reasonable and necessary. In re Stress, 939 P.2d 500 (Colo. App. 1997).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that parent did not meet this burden. In re Stress, 939 P.2d 500 (Colo. App. 1997).

Trial court may deviate from the child support guidelines set forth in this section if the application of such guidelines would be inequitable, but if it does deviate, the court must make specific factual findings to support any deviation and failure to make such specific findings requires reversal. In re English, 757 P.2d 1130 (Colo. App. 1988); In re Hoffman, 878 P.2d 103 (Colo. App. 1994); In re Andersen, 895 P.2d 1161 (Colo. App. 1995).

The trial court has discretion to deviate from the guidelines where justified, provided it makes appropriate findings. In re Thornton, 802 P.2d 1194 (Colo. App. 1990); In re Payan, 890 P.2d 264 (Colo. App. 1995).

Deviation from child support guidelines is not justified by hardship resulting solely from application of the guidelines, absent other unusual or unique financial circumstances. In re Thornton, 802 P.2d 1194 (Colo. App. 1990).

Taking care of three-year-old triplets may be considered extraordinary circumstances justifying a deviation from the child support guidelines. In re Ikeler, 148 P.3d 347 (Colo. App. 2006), rev'd on other grounds, 161 P.3d 663 (Colo. 2007).

The court must make specific factual findings, however, justifying such a deviation. In re Ikeler, 148 P.3d 347 (Colo. App. 2006), rev'd on other grounds, 161 P.3d 663 (Colo. 2007).

The finding that it is important for the child to spend extended time with mother is, in itself, irrelevant to the issue of whether there should be a deviation in child support. In re Andersen, 895 P.2d 1161 (Colo. App. 1995).

A finding that one parent has a higher cost of living will not, in and of itself, ordinarily justify deviating from the guidelines. In re Andersen, 895 P.2d 1161 (Colo. App. 1995).

Case remanded for reconsideration of deviation from guidelines based on new spouse's income under the guidelines in In re Nimmo, 891 P.2d 1002 (Colo. 1995). In re Andersen, 895 P.2d 1161 (Colo. App. 1995).

Subsection (13) does not require an automatic adjustment to presumptive amount of child support but rather gives the trial court discretion to determine if an adjustment on account of a child's financial resources is appropriate. In re Thornton, 802 P.2d 1194 (Colo. App. 1990).

Application of child support guidelines establishes an amount of support that is presumed to be necessary to meet a child's needs; however, the extent to which an unemancipated child's income should be used to defray basic support obligations is within the trial court's discretion and depends upon the totality of circumstances in a particular case. In re Pollock, 881 P.2d 470 (Colo. App. 1994); In re Cropper, 895 P.2d 1158 (Colo. App. 1995).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to include child's receipt of public support payments as income available to the child under subsection (13)(b). Such payments represent gratuitous contributions from the government and do not reduce the parent's duty to provide support. They are intended to supplement other income, not to substitute for it. In re Thornton, 802 P.2d 1194 (Colo. App. 1990).

But it is proper under subsection (13)(b) for the court to consider mother's receipt of social security disability payments on behalf of the children as an adjustment to child support because those payments actually diminished the children's basic needs. In re Quintana, 30 P.3d 870 (Colo. App. 2001).

Court is authorized under this section to calculate child support based on a determination of a parent's potential income if parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. In re Marshall, 781 P.2d 177 (Colo. App. 1989), cert. denied, 794 P.2d 1011 (Colo. 1990).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the father's amount of child support, where it found that the father was not voluntarily underemployed but had terminated his full time employment to return to college to obtain an advanced degree. In re Ehlert, 868 P.2d 1168 (Colo. App. 1994).

If a court determines that a parent engaged in a good faith effort to achieve higher income, financial independence, or a career in the foreseeable future, to impute income to that parent would unfairly penalize the parent's effort at self-sufficiency and would be contrary to the public policy of encouraging the financial independence of dependent spouses. In re Seanor, 876 P.2d 44 (Colo. App. 1993).

Wife was engaged in a good faith effort to achieve a college education in order to further her income position where the evidence showed she had not worked for approximately nine years and she had completed two years of study towards a bachelors degree in a three-year period, during which time she had achieved a 3.72 grade point average. She had not attended school the previous year because of the death of her current spouse's mother and the hospitalization and continued medical complications and concerns of one of the children. In re Seanor, 876 P.2d 44 (Colo. App. 1993).

Trial court properly determined that father, a convicted sex offender, was voluntarily underemployed. Although the conviction likely limited father's employment opportunities, father did not attempt to find gainful employment despite having an M.B.A. degree, a real estate broker's license, and many years of work experience. People ex rel. A.R.D., 43 P.3d 632 (Colo. App. 2001).

Extent to which a child's income and assets should be applied to the payment of educational expenses or basic support is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court under the totality of circumstances in each case. In re Barrett, 797 P.2d 848 (Colo. App. 1990); In re Pollock, 881 P.2d 470 (Colo. App. 1994); In re Davis, 252 P.3d 530 (Colo. App. 2011).

The limit on postsecondary expenses is the amount calculated as if the child receiving such education had been the only child. Legislative history makes it clear that the 1994 amendment was intended to clarify rather than change the statute. In re Parker, 886 P.2d 312 (Colo. App. 1994).

Trial court did not abuse discretion in not deviating from the child support guidelines in order to avoid calculating child support based on IRA interest and dividends. In re Tessmer, 903 P.2d 1194 (Colo. App. 1995).

Absent a finding that a child has been diagnosed as having a mental disorder, a noncustodial parent cannot be required to share in the costs for therapy, whether such costs are included within the child support obligation or ordered to be paid separately. Absent the need for therapy because of a mental disorder, such cost must be borne by the party who makes the decision to provide the child with therapy. In re Finer, 920 P.2d 325 (Colo. App. 1996).

Court may not deviate downward from the presumptive child support award to ensure continued eligibility for public assistance benefits. Court erred in ordering mother to pay $245 per month in child support instead of the statutory amount of $399 per month in order to preserve the paternal grandparents' public daycare benefits. In re Hein, 253 P.3d 636 (Colo. App. 2010).

Applied in In re Rosser, 767 P.2d 807 (Colo. App. 1988).

The provisions of subsections (2) and (7)(e) indicate that the general assembly did not intend to include health insurance premiums in the ordinary and necessary expenses covered by the basic child support obligation set forth in the guidelines; therefore, health insurance premiums paid by the father cannot be deducted from the total amount of the father's support obligation under the child support guidelines. In re English, 757 P.2d 1130 (Colo. App. 1988).

Where there was no evidence presented to establish the asserted extra cost of purchasing health insurance through the employment of the father's present spouse, there was no basis for the trial court to apply this section. In re Ansay, 839 P.2d 527 (Colo. App. 1992).

Application of the provisions of this section by the court for the modification of a prior child support order entered under the Uniform Parentage Act was error as a matter of law. Ashcraft v. Allis, 747 P.2d 1274 (Colo. App. 1987).

Pre-1991 postsecondary education support orders. Subsection (1.5)(c.5) allows the modification of pre-1991 postsecondary education support orders.In re Chalat, 112 P.3d 47 (Colo. 2005).

Substantial and continuing changed circumstances requirement and postsecondary education support orders. Absent application of the age of emancipation (§ 14-10-122 (4)) or medical insurance (§ 14-10-122 (1)) exceptions, the court's continuing jurisdiction to modify postsecondary education support orders is invoked only upon a showing of substantial and continuing changed circumstances by the party seeking modification. Nothing in the plain language of subsection (1.5)(c.5) or § 14-10-122 alters this clear, unambiguous requirement. In re Chalat, 112 P.3d 47 (Colo. 2005).

Effect of amendments to postsecondary education support scheme on the substantial and continuing changed circumstances requirement. The general assembly did not express an intent that its enactments of amendments to the postsecondary education support scheme alone automatically triggers a court's continuing jurisdiction to modify child support. The requirement for substantial and continuing changed circumstances must still be shown. In re Chalat, 112 P.3d 47 (Colo. 2005).

Order specifying amount where original order merely imposed duty. Where an original court order imposes a duty of support without specifying an amount under the criteria of this section, a subsequent court order specifying the amount need only conform with this section, rather than the modification requirements of § 14-10-122 . In re Saiz, 634 P.2d 1020 (Colo. App. 1981).

If the financial ability of the husband and father improves, and the needs of the minor children increase, the jurisdiction of the court to make additional orders for the care and maintenance of the minor children may be invoked at any time in a proper proceeding. Brown v. Brown, 131 Colo. 467 , 283 P.2d 951 (1955).

Trial court properly denied father's motion for modification, which was based solely on the 1993 statutory amendment to subsection (1.5)(b)(I) and which did not allege any substantial or continuing change in the parents' or the child's circumstances. In re Eaton, 894 P.2d 56 (Colo. App. 1995).

The provisions of any decree respecting child support may be modified only as to installments accruing subsequent to the filing of the motion for modification. Thus, if child support is modified, the modification should be effective as of the date of filing of the request therefor. In re Mackey, 940 P.2d 1112 (Colo. App. 1997).

Any order reducing the amount of support money operated only in future. Engleman v. Engleman, 145 Colo. 299 , 358 P.2d 864 (1961).

The proposition that future support payments could not be reduced as long as a husband was in default, even though a proper showing could be made of inability to pay, was not the law in Colorado. Kane v. Kane, 154 Colo. 440 , 391 P.2d 361 (1964).

Parent's medical expenses relevant to modification as well as to initial determination of support. Where change in presumed support under guideline based on gross income is less than ten percent, the parent seeking modification may nonetheless establish a substantial and continuing change in circumstances, justifying a deviation from the guideline, due to an increase in the parent's personal medical expenses. In re Ford, 851 P.2d 295 (Colo. App. 1993).

Deviation from the guidelines in calculating the basic child support obligation was error where court reasoned that father would not be able to support himself if required to pay the amount specified in the guidelines in light of his required contribution to the extraordinary medical expenses required by the child. In re Nielsen, 794 P.2d 1097 (Colo. App. 1990).

In circumstances where father is providing health insurance coverage for new spouse and father's other children living with him, in addition to child who is subject to order, the amount of the premium attributable to such child was “not available or cannot be verified” and trial court erred by refusing to allow the addition to the support obligation for a portion of that premium. In re Andersen, 895 P.2d 1161 (Colo. App. 1995).

Child's income may allow for a reduction of the support obligation if the court determines that it does “actually diminish basic needs” of child. In re Kluver, 771 P.2d 34 (Colo. App. 1989).

Mother's receipt of social security disability payments on behalf of the children actually diminished children's basic needs and court did not abuse its discretion by including the payments in the adjustment of the father's child support obligation. In re Quintana, 30 P.3d 870 (Colo. App. 2001).

Modification of award based on child's income for purposes of extraordinary educational expenditures or the satisfaction of basic needs is a question of fact to be determined under the totality of circumstances in each case. In re Barrett, 797 P.2d 848 (Colo. App. 1990).

A trial court is not bound to deduct automatically the entire amount of a child's income from his or her educational costs or basic support obligation but must look at the child's reduced need, if any, for parental support. In re Barrett, 797 P.2d 848 (Colo. App. 1990); In re Cropper, 895 P.2d 1158 (Colo. App. 1995).

Trial court abused its discretion in refusing to deviate from a strict application of the guideline calculations for basic child support where certain expenses were shown to be duplicative. In re Barrett, 797 P.2d 848 (Colo. App. 1990).

The court did not err in denying a modification for contributions earned by the children where evidence showed that the older children did not receive any Pell grants toward their college expenses, and testimony regarding the additional expenses towards which the children put their earnings was sufficient for the court to determine that a reduction in the amount of support was not appropriate. In re Ansay, 839 P.2d 527 (Colo. App. 1992).

A trial court does not err if it requires parents who are legally responsible for support to contribute to a dependent child's needs in lieu of requiring the child to expend all of his or her own resources. In re Pring, 742 P.2d 343 (Colo. App. 1987); In re Cropper, 895 P.2d 1158 (Colo. App. 1995).

Child support obligations to children of a second marriage may be deducted from a parent's income when the court is considering a modification of child support ordered for children of a first marriage. In re Hannum, 796 P.2d 57 (Colo. App. 1990).

The allocation of tax exemptions may be considered when the court is considering a modification of child support. In re Oberg, 900 P.2d 1267 (Colo. App. 1994).

In considering a modification of child support, the trial court is bound by the facts and circumstances of the parents and the children as they exist at the time of the hearing. If there is a pending foreclosure sale, the court should await the sale's completion and complete its record on the amount of debt incurred before it determines the modification question. In re Kimbrough, 784 P.2d 852 (Colo. App. 1989).

Court did not violate prohibition against adjustment that results in support payments lower than previously existing support order under subsection (7)(d.5)(II) when the decrease in the husband's child support obligation was due solely to the switch to a shared custody child support calculation and a decrease in the wife's work-related child care expenses. The decrease was entirely unrelated to the income adjustment given to the wife for her after-born child. In re Martin, 910 P.2d 83 (Colo. App. 1995).

Court had authority to recalculate child support using a different worksheet than previously used. Once court gained jurisdiction to modify child support pursuant to the wife's motion, the court is not prohibited from utilizing the proper formula for such support, particularly when that formula was part of the same statute under which the wife filed her motion to modify. In re Martin, 910 P.2d 83 (Colo. App. 1995).

Rebuttable presumption of a change of circumstances existed under the child support guidelines where the parties changed custody of one of the minor children from the mother to the father. In re Miller, 790 P.2d 890 (Colo. App. 1990).

For purpose of calculating and modifying child support, trial court properly included in gross income of husband an amount which a one-time post-decree inheritance could be expected to yield, although calculation of such amount was incorrect. In re Armstrong, 831 P.2d 501 (Colo. App. 1992).

Trial court did not impermissibly interfere with husband's constitutional property rights by including in gross income an amount which a one-time post-decree inheritance received by husband could be expected to yield. In re Armstrong, 831 P.2d 501 (Colo. App. 1992).

A monetary inheritance should be included in gross income for purposes of calculating child support in the year that the beneficiary withdraws from the inheritance and relies on it as a source of income. In re A.M.D., 78 P.3d 741 (Colo. 2003).

That remainder of a monetary inheritance that is not withdrawn and spent should be treated as an income-producing asset and the actual interest income it generates should be included in gross income. In re A.M.D., 78 P.3d 741 (Colo. 2003).

In determining how much of the principal of an inheritance to include in gross income, the trial court should apply a two-part test: (1) The court must decide whether an inheritance is monetary; and, if so, (2) whether the recipient used the principal as a source of income either to meet existing living expenses or to increase the recipient's standard of living. In re A.M.D., 78 P.3d 741 (Colo. 2003).

Court did not make findings required by subsection (14.5) to modify the allocation of federal income tax exemptions between the parties. Order allocating exemptions to the parties in alternating years, therefore, was reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court. In re Trout, 897 P.2d 838 (Colo. App. 1994).

Failure to submit financial information to the trial court and the failure of the trial court to review the modified agreement between the parties rendered the resulting trial court order subject to being set aside under C.R.C.P. 60 (b)(5). In re Smith, 928 P.2d 828 (Colo. App. 1996).

Court's award of income tax exemption to father in alternate years, as part of court's judgment on mother's motion to modify child support was supported by the record and complies with the requirements of this section. The court was not required to hold an additional hearing before amending the judgment when it had already heard testimony concerning the parties' incomes and had determined the percentage contribution of the parties to the costs of raising the child. The court could conclude on that record that father would receive a tax benefit from the exemption award. In Interest of A.R.W., 903 P.2d 10 (Colo. App. 1994).

Father's post-dissolution motion for reimbursement of previously paid child care expenses was properly denied. Reimbursement is not mandated under this section and the court has discretion whether to refer the parties to mediation. In re Lishnevsky, 981 P.2d 609 (Colo. App. 1999).

Court should compare child support order currently in effect with child support guidelines to determine whether a substantial and continuing change of circumstances exists. Although the parties' current child support order was the result of the parties' agreement to a reduced amount of child support, the court should have compared the current child support order with the presumed child support obligation under the guidelines at the time of mother's motion to determine if mother had shown a substantial and continuing change of circumstances sufficient to maintain her motion for modification. In re M.G.C.-G., 228 P.3d 271 (Colo. App. 2010).

The resolution of the question of emancipation was concerned more with the extinguishment of parental rights and duties than with the removal of the disabilities of infancy, and it occurred only when there was a complete severance of the filial tie, and the child's possession or lack of possession of the right to vote had little or no bearing on the determination as to whether such tie had or had not been severed. Van Orman v. Van Orman, 30 Colo. App. 177, 492 P.2d 81 (1971).

The enactment of the voting rights act of 1970, lowering the federal voting age to 18 years, did not emancipate a 20 year old son, as a matter of law. Van Orman v. Van Orman, 30 Colo. App. 177, 492 P.2d 81 (1971).

In Colorado, a person retains the status of minority until the age of 21 years, and that statutory definition is controlling as to the age at which emancipation occurs as a matter of law, except where otherwise provided by statute. Van Orman v. Van Orman, 30 Colo. App. 177, 492 P.2d 81 (1971).

In the absence of emancipation occurring upon attainment of majority, the question of whether a child was emancipated was essentially one of fact determinable by the trier of fact. Van Orman v. Van Orman, 30 Colo. App. 177, 492 P.2d 81 (1971).

Change in the age of emancipation and duty of support in this section did not automatically modify a parent's existing obligation of support which required obligor to pay support until child reached 21 years. In re Dion, 970 P.2d 968 (Colo. App. 1997).

The marriage of the minor daughter terminated the parental duty of support and no enforceable rights to support payments could thereafter accrue to the mother. Berglund v. Berglund, 28 Colo. App. 382, 474 P.2d 800 (1970).

Support for dependent child after attainment of majority. This article gives the court jurisdiction to enter a decree for support of a dependent child of the marriage after attainment of majority. In re Koltay, 646 P.2d 405 (Colo. App. 1982), aff'd, 667 P.2d 1374 (Colo. 1983).

Once a child is over 21 and physically and mentally capable of self support, such child is not entitled to receive support payments from father, despite the fact that the child had an expectation of attending college had parents not divorced. Factors such as standard of living child would have enjoyed and educational needs can only be applied in determining child support if the child had not reached majority. In re Plummer, 735 P.2d 165 (Colo. 1987).

Express provision for post-emancipation support, where circumstances warrant, may be made in a decree entered before the child's twenty-first birthday. In such a case, factors such as standard of living and expectation of attending college may be considered. In re Huff, 834 P.2d 244 (Colo. 1992) (decided under law in effect prior to enactment of subsection (1.5), dealing specifically with postsecondary education support).

Provision for post-emancipation support may also be made by written agreement of the parties, as is indicated by reading this section together with § 14-10-122 (3) . In re Huff, 834 P.2d 244 (Colo. 1992).

Meaning of “previously existing support order”. An order entered October 22, 1993, nunc pro tunc August 12, 1993, made retroactive to August 1, 1992, modifying a March 1992 support order, is not a “previously existing support order” with regard to a modification of support to take into account a child born to the father and his new wife in December 1992, because it was not “previously existing” until it was actually entered by the court. In re Oberg, 900 P.2d 1267 (Colo. App. 1994).

Past due child support payments in themselves constitute debt. Colo. State Bank v. Utt, 622 P.2d 584 (Colo. App. 1980).

Amount owed may be garnished by bank which held judgment against former wife. Colo. State Bank v. Utt, 622 P.2d 584 (Colo. App. 1980).

It was not error to require a husband to pay arrears of support money for his minor children during the period of time the wife refuses him the right to visit the children, where no objection was made to the entry of such order. Hayes v. Hayes, 134 Colo. 315 , 303 P.2d 238 (1956).

A trial court could not punish a father, delinquent in his child support payments through no fault of his own, by denying him visitation rights until he became current in his payments. Kane v. Kane, 154 Colo. 440 , 391 P.2d 361 (1964).

A trial court was without authority to forgive delinquent payments of support money. Gier v. Gier, 139 Colo. 289 , 339 P.2d 677 (1959); Engleman v. Engleman, 145 Colo. 299 , 358 P.2d 864 (1961); Drazich v. Drazich, 153 Colo. 218 , 385 P.2d 259 (1963).

Overpayments on child support made direct to one child could not be set off against accrued overdue installments which were owed to the mother on behalf of another child. Dorsey v. Dorsey, 28 Colo. App. 63, 470 P.2d 581 (1970).

The general rule was to the effect that when a father was required by a divorce decree to pay to the mother money for the support of their dependent children, and the unpaid and accrued installments became judgments in her favor, he could not, as a matter of law, claim credit on account of payments voluntarily made directly to the children, special considerations of an equitable nature could justify a court in crediting such payments on his indebtedness to the mother when that could be done without injustice to her. Dorsey v. Dorsey, 28 Colo. App. 63, 470 P.2d 581 (1970).

Get free summaries of new opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Business and Financial Services

Colorado state university, travel services.

Mailing Address: 6003 Campus Delivery   Physical Address: 555 S Howes St, 3rd Floor

JP Morgan Travel Cards

• CSU Travel Card
• Cardholder Log In Pmt Net
• Cardholder Quick Reference Pmt Net
• CSU Travel Card - Cancellation Form
• CSU Travel Card - Cardholder Agreement
• Delegate Request
• MC Guide to Benefits - Commercial
• Mobile Wallet
• Mobile Wallet - FAQs
• Rental Car Insurance Matrix
• Travel Card Application
• CSU Travel Event Card
• CSU Cardholder Agreement Event Card
• Event Card Application

State Approved Car Rental Agencies

• Rental Car Quick Guide

Hertz Corporation

• State of Colorado Price Agreement

Enterprise Rent-A-Car & National Car Rental

• National and Enterprise FAQ
• Emerald Club
• Leisure Rental
• Program Summary

TEM Specific Information and Training

• DHA Authorization Form
• Missing Receipt Documentation
• Rideshare Consideration Form
• TEM AR Customer Form

TEM Guides and Information

• Guide to log into Kuali
• How to Search for Travel Documents
• Schedule for Direct Deposits
• Guide for Department Higher Authority to Approve
• Guide for Travelers to Approve
• Guide to find eName
• Travel Authorization (TA) Checklist
• Travel Object Codes
• Travel Reimbursement Checklist with existing TA
• Travel Reimbursement Checklist without existing TA
• How to Cancel or Close TA Documents

TEM Training

• Travel Arrangers Kuali Basics
• Training Part 1 - TEM Overview
• Training Part 2 - Out-of-State Travel and Travel Advances
• Training Part 3 - International and Group Travel
• Testing TEM - INTRO,TA,TR
• Travel Testing Examples - Additional
• Travel Advance Workflow
• Travel Authorization Workflow
• Travel Reimbursement Workflow
• Airfare with Ghostcard Workflow
• Combined Out of State and International Trip - Example
• Training Part 1 - Examples
• Training Part 2 - Examples
• Training Part 3 - Examples

Step by Step

• TEM Profile Step by Step
• Travel Authorization Step by Step
• Travel Reimbursement Step by Step

Year End Resources

Training - Recorded MS Teams Trainings

• Create a TR from a TA
• Establish Travel Arranger
• Group Travel (Travel Authorization) Part 1
• Group Travel (Travel Authorization) Part 2
• How to Add Yourself as a Travel Arranger
• In-State Travel Reimbursement
• International Travel
• Receipt Training
• Return unused travel advance
• TEM Profile
• Travel Advance
• Travel Authorization
• Travel Authorization Amendment
• Travel Reimbursement with a Travel Advance
• Using Group Ad-hoc

Travel and Moving Information and Guides

Travel Guides

• Fly America Act Waiver
• Chartered Flight Approval
• Pocket Guide for Travel
• Quick Reference Guide to University Travel
• Travel and Recruitment Manual (FPI 5-1)
• Taxable Reimbursement for Spouses ans Recruits

Moving Guides

• Travel Reimbursement Checklist
• Moving Manual (FPI 2-6)
• Moving Pocket Guide
• Moving Reimbursement Checklist

State Approved Travel Agencies

Tools and Links

• Map Quest - Mileage and Directions
• OANDA - Currency Converter
• Per Diem Rates
• WallyPark - State of Colorado DIA Parking Rate
• Travel Advance Agreement
• Current Mileage Rates
• United Break from Business Information
• United Break form Business Enrollment
• United Break from Business Enrollment Instructions
• United Landline Schedule
• SouthWest Business Account Information
• Travel Services Q&A Session -1 10-13-22
• Travel Services Q&A Session -2 10-25-22
• Travel 2017
• Travel 2016

Colorado LegiSource

An informational and educational resource for the colorado general assembly by the office of legislative legal services..

Legislative Ethics: Accepting Gifts of Travel Expenses

by Jennifer Gilroy

Article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution (commonly referred to as “Amendment 41”) establishes two “gift bans”: One that prohibits a member of the General Assembly from asking for or accepting gifts worth more than $65 [1] from any one source in a given year and one that prohibits members of the General Assembly from accepting any money, forbearance, or forgiveness of indebtedness, unless, in either case, the member provides lawful consideration of equal or greater value in return. In today’s article, we’re going to talk about the ban on accepting gifts, specifically as it applies to gifts of travel expenses.

There are eight exceptions that apply to both gift bans. One of those exceptions allows a legislator to accept the payment of reasonable expenses by a state or local government or by a nonprofit entity that receives less than five percent of its funding from for-profit entities to attend a convention, fact-finding mission or trip, or other meeting. To qualify for the exception, the recipient must be scheduled to speak, make a presentation, participate on a panel, or represent the state or local government. Legislators can seek an advisory opinion on a particular ethics question from the Independent Ethics Commission (IEC), created as an essential component of Amendment 41.

The IEC has also stated that, even if the criteria for the exceptions are not met, a covered individual may still accept the payment of travel expenses if the gift is a benefit to the government institution that employs the covered individual rather than to the individual. The IEC provided the following factors for the covered individual to consider when determining whether the gift is a gift to the government institution or to the covered individual, although no single factor is determinative and the entire context of the proposed travel must be evaluated before acceptance:

• Whether the offer is to a designee of an agency or government entity, rather than to a specific individual;
• Whether the offer is to the covered individual by virtue of the individual’s specific position or area of responsibility or expertise ( ex officio );
• Whether the offer is for an event that is related to the covered individual’s public duties;
• Whether the offer poses an existing or potential conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety; and
• Whether the offer is for a trip for educational or government business purposes and not primarily a networking opportunity.

See, IEC PS 12-01 .

Want to test what you’ve learned about accepting a gift of travel expenses? Here are some hypothetical situations for your consideration:

Situation #1. You have been asked by a representative of the National Association of State Legislatures (NASL) to participate on a one-hour panel discussion at their three-day fall forum in Washington D.C. The NASL representative explains to you that NASL will pay for your airfare, hotel accommodations, and the cost of the registration to attend and participate in the conference. You learn that NASL is a nonprofit government exchange organization; however, you also learn that it receives substantially more than 5% of its annual funding from for-profit entities, despite the fact that states, including Colorado, pay substantial annual membership dues to NASL.

May you accept payment of the airfare, hotel accommodations, and registration from NASL to attend the NASL Fall Forum in Washington D.C.?

• Even though NASL is a nonprofit entity, you may not accept the gift of airfare, hotel accommodations, and registration since NASL receives more than five percent of its funding from for-profit sources.
• YES, so long as you disclose the value of what you receive in your quarterly gifts and honoraria report that you are required to file with the Secretary of State’s office.
• YES, because payment of your airfare, hotel accommodations, and registration is essentially payment of an honoraria for your participation on the panel discussion.
• YES, because NASL is a government exchange organization to which the state pays annual dues that are expressly invoiced to cover travel and expenses related to attendance at NASL events, consistent with the IEC’s PS 10-01 .

The correct answer is d. While NASL does not meet the five percent criterion established in the exception to the gift ban, it is a government exchange organization as described by the IEC to which the state of Colorado pays membership dues each year. Because the dues are invoiced expressly to cover travel and other expenses to attend NASL events, you may accept the payment of airfare, hotel accommodations, and registration by NASL to attend its conference. You may also be permitted to stay throughout the conference if you will also be participating in other educational events and representing state government while you are there. See, IEC AO 13-11 and IEC AO 13-12 .

Situation#2. You are the chair of the House Rural Affairs and Agriculture Committee. The Speaker also appointed you to serve on the Joint Wildfire Interim Committee, which you also chair. You have sponsored five bills over the past two legislative sessions addressing various wildfire issues, and you consider yourself very knowledgeable on the topic of wildfires. A representative of the western division of the Council of State Legislatures (CSL), a nonprofit organization of legislators, has invited you to attend the three-day Western States Wildfire Conference they are hosting in Salt Lake City, Utah next month. Because of your expertise, experience, and knowledge related to wildfire issues and your position as the chair of the Joint Wildfire Interim Committee, CSL has asked you to moderate one of the sessions on environmental ethics related to the use of slurry to fight wildfires. CSL has offered to pay for your airfare and hotel accommodations as well as a round of golf at the prestigious Eaglewood Golf Course (you are an avid golfer). You are very interested in attending this conference in hopes that you will learn more from experts in the field of wildfires and other legislators from states facing wildfire issues similar to Colorado. You have recently learned that CSL receives more than five percent of its funding from for-profit sources, and you are not sure if that will prevent you from being able to attend this educational program.

May you attend the CSL wildfire conference?

• Because CSL is a nonprofit entity and because you will be participating in the program by moderating one of the sessions, you may accept the gift of airfare and hotel accommodations.
• Because there is a golf outing associated with the conference, you may not accept the invitation.
• Even though CSL is a nonprofit organization that receives more than five percent of its funding from for-profit sources, due to your expertise in the area of wildfires, and your position as chair of the House Rural Affairs and Agriculture, Committee and the Joint Wildfire Interim Committee, and because there is no conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety, your attendance at this educational conference would actually benefit the General Assembly rather than just you as an individual.
• The CSL may be a nonprofit entity, but because it receives more than five percent of its funding from for-profit sources, you may not accept the payment of the conference expenses.

The correct answer is c. PS 12-01 from the IEC provides that if the offer would actually benefit the government institution (here, the General Assembly) rather than just you as an individual, then you may be able to accept the payment of expenses to attend an educational conference. In this case, because you were invited to attend and participate in the conference due to your position as chair of the House Rural Affairs and Committee and the Joint Wildfire Interim Committee, because this is an area of expertise for you, and because it is an educational conference and not just an opportunity to network, it would be appropriate for you to accept the payment of expenses associated with attending this conference under the IEC’s PS 12-01, so long as there is neither an existing or potential conflict of interest nor an appearance of impropriety. You should not accept the golf outing, unless you pay for it separately yourself.

For more LegiSource articles on gift bans and the Independent Ethics Commission, see:

• https://legisource.net/2018/09/06/ethics-alert-read-this-before-your-next-town-hall-or-community-meeting/
• https://legisource.net/2017/03/02/happy-birthday-colorado-independent-ethics-commission/
• https://legisource.net/2015/02/19/not-even-a-cup-of-coffee-gift-bans-on-lobbyists-can-directly-affect-legislators/
• https://legisource.net/2013/03/21/a-new-interpretation-of-amendment-41-and-gifts-of-travel-maybe-you-can-attend-that-conference/
• https://legisource.net/2013/01/17/where-to-turn-when-you-are-faced-with-an-ethics-dilemma/

Click here for other LegiSource articles regarding ethics.

[1] Section 3(2) of Article XXIX originally established the gift ban cap at $50, but the Independent Ethics Commission has since adjusted that amount pursuant to section 3(6) of Article XXIX, most recently in 2019.

Skip to Content

Other ways to search:

• Events Calendar

Charging Travel Expenditures to Sponsored Projects

I. procedural statement.

This document is intended to serve as formal guidance for CU Boulder for charging travel-related expenditures to funds received from sponsored projects in like circumstances. The university is committed to ensuring costs incurred in support of sponsored research are allowable, reasonable, and allocable to a particular sponsored award, as defined by U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s Uniform Guidance ( 2 CFR §200.403-405 ); are in compliance with sponsor requirements; and are administered consistently across the campus for all sponsored research. Procedural statements support the CU Boulder Cost Principles Policy by providing definitions and processes for meeting those standards in like circumstances.

II. Definitions

Travel Costs are defined in the U.S Office of Management and Budget’s Uniform Guidance, 2 CFR 200.474(a) , as:

Expenses for transportation, lodging, subsistence, and related items incurred by employees who are in travel status on official business of the non-federal entity.

CU Boulder allows non-employee travel to be direct charged to sponsored projects when it meets the criteria in Section III.A. below.

III. Procedures

A. federal awards.

Section 2 CFR 200.474 of the Uniform Guidance states that expenditures for travel related expenses are allowable when in travel status on official business of the university. Please note that while federal regulations allow these expenditures, it is important to review each award’s terms and conditions as sponsor guidelines may be more restrictive and may require specific sponsor prior approval, even when included in the proposed budget. When allowed by the federal sponsor, travel must be pre-approved on campus as prescribed by APS 4024, Travel Authorization and determined by department, center, or institute policy.

CU Boulder considers the following criteria key elements in determining whether or not and travel charges are allowable:

• The travel is necessary to fulfill the research objective of the project and it directly benefits the project being charged, and
• The cost for travel is reasonable and represents prudent use of the sponsor’s funds, and
• There is a clearly defined relationship between the traveler and how he/she supports the work of the project that is provided in the travel documentation. If the traveler receives salary from the project, that provides sufficient documentation of the relationship.

Allowable Travel-Related Expenses

The Uniform Guidance specifically allows expenses for lodging, subsistence, and related expenses as long as they follow university policy and procedures. Therefore, travel expenses for these categories need to adhere to Procurement Service Center regulations. CU Boulder provides additional requirements for sponsored research travel in this procedural statement. Transportation expenses are allowable but have additional federal requirements that restrict the acceptable dollar amount that can be charged for these categories.

• Airfare: Costs must represent the basic least expensive available unrestricted accommodations class unless those would unduly prolong the trip, require travel at unreasonable hours, increase the routing, or add costs that offset the airfare savings. For federal awards or when the sponsor requires it, ensure the carrier being used for international travel is in accordance with the Fly America Act Desk Reference .
• Car Rental: General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) 301-10.450(c) stipulates that the least expensive compact car available must be used unless an exception for another class of vehicle has been justified. Explanation for the exception can be provided in the proposal budget justification or, if needed after the award is funded, provided with the travel expense reconciliation and stored in Concur. Exceptions include, but are not limited to, when there are multiple travelers in the same vehicle, to accommodate a medical disability, the amount of equipment and/or materials to be carried will not fit into a smaller vehicle, etc. Refer to FTR 301-10.450(c)(1-6) for a full listing of allowable exceptions.

Other allowable expenses include:

• Lodging: Lodging can be charged to a project if an overnight stay is necessary to complete the purpose of the trip and it directly supports the project being charged; CU Boulder considers the traveler to be in travel status when both of these conditions are met.
• Meals: Meals for the traveler can be charged to a project only while in travel status or for a day trip lasting longer than twelve hours, and must follow the per diem standards outlined in the Procurement Service Center's Travel Procedural Statement .
• Travel Visas: If the destination country for the travel requires a visa to enter the country and the travel is required to fulfill research objectives, the cost of that visa is allowable for essential project personnel and should be included in the proposed budget.
• The purpose of the travel,
• What role this non-employee plays on the project,
• How the travel directly benefits the project,
• Whether or not it has been pre-approved by the sponsor.

Unallowable Travel-Related Expenses

The Uniform Guidance identifies specific instances when travel expenses are unallowable.

• Business-Class or First-Class Airfare: This is unallowable except for travelers whose medical needs require these accommodations. These situations are analyzed by the university on a case-by-case basis and the traveler must provide a doctor’s statement explaining the medical need for this exception. In certain cases, sponsor pre-approval may be required.
• Travel Costs for Dependents: These are unallowable unless the travel is for six months or more and has sponsor prior approval.
• Temporary Dependent Care: Federal standards allow these costs only when provided for all qualified employees of the university. CU Boulder does not have such a policy, therefore these are unallowable costs to a project.

Additionally, CU Boulder also disallows the following charges to sponsored projects in like circumstances:

• Passport Fees: Passports are active for 10 years and their use benefits multiple activities, including business and personal, as well as unknown future activities. Therefore, it would be problematic justifying this expense or allocating it with a high degree of reliability.
• Fees to Expedite Visa Processing: Fees to fast-track visa processing are not allowed.
• Per diem reimbursement and lodging for local travel: As outlined in the Procurement Service Center's Travel Procedural Statement , travel in the local area will not be eligible for meal or lodging costs; however, reimbursement is allowed for local mileage and parking.

B. Non-Federal Awards

Section 2 CFR 200.403(c) of the Uniform Guidance requires that we apply our policies and procedures uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the university. Therefore, CU Boulder’s Cost Principles Policy and related procedural statements are also applicable to non-federal awards. The basic criteria for charging travel expenses are similar for non-federal sponsored projects, but it is also important to be familiar with the particular requirements or restrictions of each non-federal sponsor. When allowed by the non-federal sponsor, travel must be pre-approved as prescribed by APS 4024, Travel Authorization , which typically includes a written justification for travel in order to explain why this is necessary to fulfill the research objective of the project and to ensure the cost directly benefits the project being charged, even when the non-federal sponsor may follow more flexible spending guidelines.

At Proposal

Travel should be identified in the proposal budget justification and justified as to why it is necessary and allocable to the performance of the award. Whenever possible, international travel costs should be identified separately from domestic trips. Justification should clearly state the business purpose, the travelers intended for those trips, and how these trips directly benefit the project’s research purposes. Inclusion in the budget justification is intended to enable the sponsor to review and concur with the need for the travel. Written justification and/or approval is meant to prevent questions regarding the allowability of costs in the event of an audit.

After an Award is Funded

In the event that unbudgeted travel is required after an award is funded and sponsor prior approval is needed, communicate with your OCG grant or contract officer to contact the sponsor. If it is not required for either the specific trip or for the deviation from the proposed budget, the department should follow the campus guidance for documenting budget deviations (procedural statement coming soon). Substantiating documentation retained by the department should fully describe the purpose and benefit of the travel to the specific project in the justification, and include the criteria listed above in III.A. to explain how travel is necessary and allocable to the project. The department is responsible for keeping this documentation and providing it if the costs are questioned in the future. When required, written sponsor prior approval will be retained in Boulder eRA (BeRA).

When Booking a Trip

According to University APS 4024, Travel Authorization , department approval is required for all travelers on official university business in advance of the trip, including travel funded by sponsored research. Departments should have procedures in place to ensure appropriate prior approval is provided for all trips charged to sponsored research, even if the trip was properly budgeted and/or the sponsor has provided specific prior approval. The Concur Travel system requires all international travel be approved by the department and by a university officer before the university’s travel agency can book a ticket. Please ensure sufficient time is provided when planning international trips in order to accommodate the additional time needed to complete this system requirement.

Note: Per current HR guidance, 100% remote employees working on sponsored projects are eligible to be reimbursed for travel expenses including air or ground travel to the Boulder campus, lodging (if needed), on-campus parking and/or mileage and tolls to attend a required event or meeting on the Boulder campus. These events and meetings should be infrequent (i.e. no more than 1-2 times/year). Trips for other reasons, such as the use of lab equipment, may be allowable if they are necessary for the work of the project.

For travel expenses that are charged to sponsored projects, all trips must be allowable, allocable (necessary for the project), and reasonable and within the terms and conditions of the award, and these expenses should not exceed more than 2 times per calendar year (combined total for either required onsite meetings or other project-related business need). It is recommended that departments document justification for the trips and why they are necessary to the project. Any trip costs found to be unallowable or denied by the sponsor will be the responsibility of the department, and departments should review the relevant travel policy and guidelines on the PSC website to ensure they comply with established university travel requirements.

D. Related Procedural Statements, Forms, Policies & Tools

• Can I charge this travel cost to my sponsored project? Yes/No/Maybe
• OCG's Sponsored Project Travel
• University of Colorado APS 4024 – Travel Authorization
• University of Colorado PSC Travel
• Procedural Statement for Relocation Costs
• Procedural Statement for Entertainment Costs
• Car Rental: Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) 301-10.450(c)
• Fly America Act and Open Skies Agreement
• Concur International Travel Landing Page
• See Travel FAQs on the Office of Contracts and Grants site . 
• Reason for Policy:  To establish direct charging procedures for sponsored projects in like circumstances. To determine if an unlike circumstance exists, see: Direct Charging to Sponsored Projects in Like and Unlike Circumstances .
• Related Policy : Cost Principles Policy
• Effective Date : 7/1/2016 in accordance with Uniform Guidance regulations effective for new funding received after 12/26/2014
• Approved by : Laura Ragin, AVC and Controller, CU Boulder
• Responsible Office : Office of Contracts and Grants (OCG)
• Administrative Salaries
• Computing Devices
• Conferences
• Entertainment
• Like & Unlike Circumstances
• Memberships
• Recruitment

Cost Principles Tools

• Cost Principles Policy FAQs
• Typically Allowable, Unallowable, IDC
• Meal Handout
• Department Responsibility for Receipts

• Connecticut
• District Of Columbia
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• West Virginia
• Juror Pay By State
• Jury Duty 101
• Colorado Jury Duty Laws
• Jury Duty Pay

Colorado - Jury Duty Compensation

• Jury Duty Home
• Jury Excuses
• Employer Obligations
• Court Houses

CO Jury Duty Pay and Reimbursement Rates

Page navigation:, | jury duty pay rates in colorado.

In Colorado, jurors receive nominal compensation for each day spent at jury selection , or while serving on a jury. While other states provide jurors with mileage reimbursement for travel, this is not available in Colorado.

The state reimburses all regular employees, $50.00 per diem, commencing the 4th day of service. No other entitlements are typically awarded for out of pocket expenses. Although overnight stays are unlikely, jurors residing 50 or more miles from the courthouse are eligible to receive reimbursement if they choose to stay overnight in a hotel.

Courts may make public transportation arrangements for attendance at no cost to the juror.

Unemployed or not regularly employed jurors may apply to the jury commissioner on the first day of jury service, and will be reimbursed by the state for reasonable travel, childcare, and other necessary out-of-pocket expenses, except food, for the first three days of juror service and/or any part thereof. Reimbursement will not exceed $50.00 unless otherwise determined by the state court. Unemployment benefits not affected by jury service payments.

| Other Compensation for Jurors in Colorado

Juror pay is typically a token amount, set by state or local law decades ago, and is often very low due to not being not adjusted for inflation or rising costs of living.

In addition to your pay, you will generally be reimbursed for costs associated with serving as a juror, including parking, tolls, and if necessary, overnight accommodations during multi-day trials away from your home. The courthouse will often provide refreshments and meals during the trial to permit jurors to continue deliberations without leaving.

Does My Employer Pay Me For Jury Duty?

In most states, your employer will be required to give you unpaid time off for jury duty, while in some states employers are required to pay employees for time served on a jury. Your employer may also elect to pay you for time served on a jury even if they are not required to, though many may then require you to sign over your jury duty paycheck. Click here for more info on your employer's jury duty obligations in Colorado.

Is Colorado Jury Duty Pay Taxable?

While jury duty pay in Colorado won't add up to much, the IRS considers it to be taxable income. Sometimes the court will send you a 1099-G or 1099-MISC form with your jury duty payment, other times you won't receive a 1099. Mileage reimbursements, and jury duty pay that you signed over to your employer, are not taxable. You may also be able to claim tax deductions for unreimbursed mileage or expenses incurred during the course of your jury duty service.

| CO Jury Duty Law Sections Cited:

Colo. rev. stat. § § 13-71-126 13-71-133 to 13-71-134, 18-1.3-501,   jury duty 101 instant feedback.

We value your feedback! Do you have a comment or correction concerning this page? Let us know in a single click. We read every comment!

Colorado-based abortion fund sees rising demand. Many are from Texas, where procedure is restricted

FILE - Attendees protest the one-year anniversary of Colorado's abortion law, the Reproductive Health Equity Act, Tuesday, April 4, 2023, outside the State Capitol in downtown Denver. A Colorado abortion fund said Thursday, May 9, 2024, it's helped hundreds access abortion in the first months of 2024, many arriving from Texas and other states where abortion is restricted, showing a continued increase in demand since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, File)[ASSOCIATED PRESS/David Zalubowski]

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado abortion fund said Thursday it’s helped hundreds access abortion in the first months of 2024, many arriving from Texas where abortion is restricted, showing a steady increase in need each year since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision left a patchwork of state bans , restrictions and protections across the country. In response, a national makeshift network of individuals and organizations help those seeking abortions in states where it’s restricted, including the Colorado-based Cobalt Abortion Fund.

Cobalt provides financial support for both practical expenses, such as travel and lodging, and abortion procedures, and they operate from the Democratic-led state that has staunchly protected access to abortion, including for nonresidents.

Cobalt’s aid has already jumped since Roe was overturned, from $212,00 in 2021 to $1.25 million by 2023. In Cobalt’s latest numbers, the group spent $500,000 in the first three months of 2024 and predict spending around $2.4 million by the end of the year to help people access abortions. That would nearly double last year’s support.

Over half of that 2024 spending went to some 350 people for practical support, not the procedure, and the vast majority of the clients were from Texas.

FILE - People march through downtown Amarillo to protest a lawsuit to ban the abortion drug mifepristone, Feb. 11, 2023, in Amarillo, Texas. A Colorado abortion fund said Thursday, May 9, 2024, it's helped hundreds access abortion in the first months of 2024, many arriving from Texas and other states where abortion is restricted, showing a continued increase in demand since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. (AP Photo/Justin Rex, File)

Photo: ASSOCIATED PRESS/Justin Rex

“There is this idea that the Dobbs decision and subsequent bans, due to trigger bans, created an increase in volume, and now maybe that volume has decreased or kind of stabilized. That is not the case,” said Melisa Hidalgo-Cuellar, Cobalt’s director.

“The volumes continue to increase every single month,” she said.

Hidalgo-Cuellar says the steady rise is partly due to more access to information on social media and new restrictions. Florida’s restriction went into effect last week and bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant.

Colorado has pulled in the opposite direction, becoming a haven for abortion in a region of largely conservative states. Last year, the state passed a law that shields those seeking abortions , and those providing them, from prosecution in other states where it’s restricted, such as Florida.

Now, antiabortion activists are testing the boundaries of those bans in court. That includes a Texas man who is petitioning a court to authorize an obscure legal action to find out who allegedly helped his former partner obtain an out-of-state abortion.

Those out-of-state abortions are in part why Cobalt’s funding for practical support — mainly travel expenses — exceeded it’s aid for the procedure itself.

Bedayn is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SYSTEM

• BOULDER CAMPUS
• Academic Programs
• Admissions Information
• Tuition Information
• Scholarships & Financial Aid

• COLORADO SPRINGS CAMPUS
• Scholarships & Financial Aid

• DENVER CAMPUS

• ANSCHUTZ MEDICAL CAMPUS
• Vision & Mission
• Contact the PSC
• News & Updates
• Annual Report
• Buy and Dispose Sustainably
• CU Sustainability Steering Committee
• Purchasing Services
• Commodity Listing
• IT Procurement
• Sole Source Procurements
• The Travel Card
• International Travel
• Travel Pre-Approvals
• Booking a Trip Through Concur
• Full Service Booking Through an Agent
• Airport Parking
• Vehicle Rental
• Group Travel
• Non-Employee Travel
• Travel Promotions
• Personal Travel Combined with Business Travel
• Internet Airfare
• Preferred Hotel Program (Local) - AMC
• Preferred Hotel Program (Local) - CU Denver/System
• Preferred Hotel Program (Local) - UCB
• Preferred Hotel Program (Local) - UCCS
• Receipt Management
• Employee Travel Expense Processing
• Non-Employee Travel Expense Processing
• Purchase Order Invoicing
• Non-Purchase Order Payments
• Cancelling or Reissuing Payments
• International AP Payments
• The Procurement Card
• Quick Reference Guide: Forms
• General Information
• Becoming A Supplier
• Current Suppliers
• Participate In A Bid
• Small Business Program
• CU Marketplace
• Commercial Card Program
• PSC Skillsoft Courses
• Upcoming Live Trainings
• PSC Knowledge Base
• Video Library

You are here

Increase to mileage reimbursement rates for 2024, popular searches.

• Controller Procedures
• Accounting & Finance
• Controller Training
• PSC Procedures
• PSC Training

CU System Departments

• Board of Regents
• Office of the President
• Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Budget & Finance
• University Controller
• CU Data Made Simple
• University Counsel
• Internal Audit
• Office of Ethics, Risk and Compliance (Incl. Title IX)
• University Risk Management
• Office of Policy and Efficiency (OPE)
• University Relations
• Office of Government Relations
• Outreach & Engagement
• Office of Advancement
• Office of Academic Affairs
• Faculty Senate | Faculty Council
• Faculty Senate Grievance Committee
• Coleman Institute for Cognitive Disabilities
• Colorado Learning and Teaching with Technology Conference (COLTT)
• President's Teaching Scholars Program
• Boettcher Webb-Waring Biomedical Research Award
• Employee Services (HR, Benefits, Payroll, Learning)
• University Information Services (UIS)
• Office of Information Security

Procurement Service Center

• System Staff Council
• University of Colorado Staff Council

The IRS has released the standard mileage rate for business travel in 2024. The State of Colorado allows mileage reimbursement at 90% of the prevailing IRS rate for actual necessary travel while on official business. The increased reimbursement rates are detailed below.

Concur has been updated to reflect these increased rates on mileage incurred on or after January 1, 2024.

Service Center: [email protected] | tel: (303) 837-2161 Email invoices to: [email protected] Receive Important Updates Direct to Your Email Subscribe Now: PSC Blog

1800 Grant Street, Suite 800 | Denver, CO 80203 General: (303) 860-5600 | Fax: (303) 860-5610 | Media: (303) 860-5626 © Regents of the University of Colorado | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service |

We left Colorado's cold weather and high taxes for California sunshine and a surprisingly cheaper cost of living

• Realtors Eric and Beth Ann Mott relocated from Denver to Thousand Oaks, California, in May 2022.
• The Motts attribute their move to a growing preference for California's weather and lifestyle.
• Despite common misconceptions, the Motts find California financially comparable to Colorado.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with married realtors Eric Mott, 59, and Beth Ann Mott, 57, about their experience moving from a suburb in Denver, Colorado, to Thousand Oaks, California, in May 2022.

Eric : Denver used to be a really great place to live.

I was born in California. But my folks and I relocated to Denver in 1977 when it was still a cow town.

Beth Ann: I ended up in Colorado because of Eric. We did long-distance dating between Kansas City and Denver. When we got married in 1996, I moved with him to the Denver area.

Eric: We're both full-time realtors with Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices. We bought some investment properties in Denver, and in 2009, we 1031-exchanged three of those properties for a place in Thousand Oaks. So, we've actually owned our current home here in California since 2009.

Beth Ann: We planned on getting to California at some point. But it took us about 14 years to see that come into being.

Denver used to be a great place to raise a family

Eric: Colorado was one of the first places to legalize recreational marijuana, which we did not vote for. In our opinion, that's when things started turning in Denver.

The homeless population in Denver is pretty insane, even in the suburbs. It really started to affect our quality of life. We started feeling uncomfortable going downtown.

The traffic got really bad, too. Twenty years ago, it was much easier to go up to the mountains and ski for a day. But now, the traffic is just hideous. If you want to have a ski day , you'd better be willing to get up at 5 a.m. and not get home until 8 p.m.

We liked to take cruise vacations to escape Denver during the winter. Over time, we realized we are more ocean people than mountain people. We just got sick and tired of the snow in Denver.

It was really a combination of different things that changed the environment. It's just not what we used to enjoy.

Beth Ann: We first started considering a move to California during COVID when we were sitting at home and couldn't go anywhere. We had always talked about ending up in California someday, and we thought, "Why can't someday be now?"

COVID also forced everyone to do things remotely. We started doing a lot of client appointments via Zoom. So, the seed of the idea was born out of the possibilities that COVID created. We said, "Why wait?"

We tested it out in 2021, doing a lot of traveling and working remotely with our real estate team in Denver. It worked. So, that's when we pulled the trigger for the actual move in May 2022.

We moved into the house we already owned in California

Eric: The moving process wasn't too bad. We did a bit of downsizing. And we're renovating now.

Related stories

Beth Ann: We still have our business in Denver. I commute and manage our team there a couple of times a month. We both got our California real estate licenses, too. Ultimately, the goal is to split our resources about 75% in California and 25% in Colorado.

Eric: For me, moving to California was like coming home.

We can get to the beach in 20 minutes. We can access hikes in the Santa Monica mountains at the end of our street. The Conejo Valley is like a small town. There are orchards and farms. And wherever you drive, there's green.

Beth Anne: It's beautiful, plus we have nice weather. I love things that bloom, and it's blooming here all the time.

Eric: We're also both golfers, so it's nice being in California where you can golf year-round and don't have to worry about snow on the course. We joke in December, when it's a high of 60 degrees, "Oh it's cold!" But it's really not.

Beth Ann: The traffic here is tough, though. Anytime you have to go near downtown, it's definitely not a pleasure. But the traffic in Denver was nearly as bad.

California is financially comparable to Colorado

Eric: Everybody always says the taxes in California are so much more, but they're really not when you look at them. The sales tax rate in Thousand Oaks is 7.25%, whereas where we lived in Colorado, it was 2% more. That adds up.

Beth Ann: Insurance rates in Colorado are really expensive, too. So, it's actually not that much different cost-wise living here. In fact, it's a bit cheaper. For example, we're paying less for homeowner's insurance in California than we were in Colorado. Same with property taxes.

Eric: The value of our home here in California was the approximate value of our home in Denver, dollar-wise. Our insurance policy there was around $2,300 a year. Out here, it's only $1,400. I also added on earthquake insurance, which is another $900. So it's about the same price even with the earthquake insurance as in Colorado.

The utilities here are a lot cheaper for us as well. We haven't used our air conditioner since September, and we didn't have to turn our heater on until January. That's savings in my mind.

Beth Ann: The prices at grocery stores in California, however, are a little bit higher.

Eric: But in California, there's no tax on food. That was a pleasant surprise when we first got here.

There's so much propaganda out there about California .

Beth Ann: You can't paint California with just one brush. I wouldn't have wanted to move to Los Angeles . But living in a place like Thousand Oaks is a different experience.

I think the only things we miss about Colorado are our family and our clients.

Eric: There are still things we like about Colorado, but we visit. We're enjoying the lifestyle that we're living in California.

Beth Ann: I think California will continue to be our long-term play.

Eric: California has exceeded our expectations.

Watch: What parts of California look like after record winter storm

• Main content

May 10, 2024

Winnipeg 16° C , Light rain

Full Forecast

• Advertising Contact
• Send a Letter to the Editor
• Staff biographies
• Submit a News Tip
• Subscribe to Newsletters
• Notifications
• Create Account
• Compact View
• About the E-Edition
• Winnipeg Free Press
• Community Review East
• Community Review West
• All Arts & Life
• Celebrities
• Environment
• Food & Drink
• Life & Style
• Science & Technology
• All Business
• Agriculture
• Personal Finance
• Manitoba’s Top Employers
• All Opinion
• Editorial Cartoon
• Letters to the Editor
• Auto Racing
• Blue Bombers
• High School
• Horse Racing
• Winnipeg Jets
• Manitoba Moose
• Reader Bridge
• Free Press 101: How we practise journalism
• Advertising
• Carrier Positions & Retailer Requests
• FP Newspapers Inc.
• Internships
• Job Opportunities
• Local Journalism Initiative
• Retail Locations
• Staff Biographies
• Terms and Conditions
• All Free Press Community Review News
• East Edition
• West Edition
• Classifieds
• All FP Features
• Business Hub
• Drink & Dine
• Health & Wellness
• Whiskers & Wings
• Sponsored Articles
• Property Listings
• Featured News
• Renovation and design
• Resale homes
• Newsletters
• Niigaan and the Lone Ranger
• Photo and Book store
• Become a Patron
• Privacy Policy

© 2024 Winnipeg Free Press

Quick Links

• Publications
• Sponsored Content
• Employee Code of Conduct Policy
• Supplier Code of Conduct Policy
• Report on Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains

Ways to support us

• Pay it Forward program
• Support Faith coverage
• Support Arts coverage

Replica E-Edition

Arts & Life

• Photo Galleries

Canstar Community news

Notification Settings

This browser doesn't support push notifications at the moment. Check browsers features, update your browser or try to use one from the list of recommended to manage your notifications settings:

• Firefox (27+)
• Google Chrome (30+)
• Safari ( MacOS 13+ with browser 16.1+ and iOS 16.4+ ) / Note make sure Push API support enabled under Settings > Safari > Advanced > Experimental Features
• Microsoft Edge

If you wish to manage your notification settings from this browser you will need to update your browser's settings for this site. Just click button below and allow notifications for this site

Note Safari 16.4+ working on iOS devices also need this site app to be installed at device's Home Screen for Push Notifications to work

Notifications are blocked for this site. If you wish to manage your notification settings from this browser you will need to update your browser's settings. Usually you'd need to click on site options icon to the left of address bar and change notifications preferences/permissions from there

Breaking News

Urgent and important stories

Recommended Reads

Noteworthy news and features

Advertisement

Learn more about Free Press Advertising solutions

Colorado-based abortion fund sees rising demand. Many are from Texas, where procedure is restricted

Advertise with us

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado abortion fund said Thursday it’s helped hundreds access abortion in the first months of 2024, many arriving from Texas where abortion is restricted, showing a steady increase in need each year since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

Read this article for free:

Already have an account? Log in here »

To continue reading, please subscribe:

Monthly Digital Subscription

$19 $0 for the first 4 weeks *

• Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
• Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
• Access News Break, our award-winning app
• Play interactive puzzles

*No charge for 4 weeks then billed as $19 every four weeks (new subscribers and qualified returning subscribers only). Cancel anytime.

Read unlimited articles for free today:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision left a patchwork of state bans, restrictions and protections across the country. In response, a national makeshift network of individuals and organizations help those seeking abortions in states where it’s restricted, including the Colorado-based Cobalt Abortion Fund.

Cobalt provides financial support for both practical expenses, such as travel and lodging, and abortion procedures, and they operate from the Democratic-led state that has staunchly protected access to abortion, including for nonresidents.

Cobalt’s aid has already jumped since Roe was overturned, from $212,00 in 2021 to $1.25 million by 2023. In Cobalt’s latest numbers, the group spent $500,000 in the first three months of 2024 and predict spending around $2.4 million by the end of the year to help people access abortions. That would nearly double last year’s support.

Over half of that 2024 spending went to some 350 people for practical support, not the procedure, and the vast majority of the clients were from Texas.

“There is this idea that the Dobbs decision and subsequent bans, due to trigger bans, created an increase in volume, and now maybe that volume has decreased or kind of stabilized. That is not the case,” said Melisa Hidalgo-Cuellar, Cobalt’s director.

“The volumes continue to increase every single month,” she said.

Hidalgo-Cuellar says the steady rise is partly due to more access to information on social media and new restrictions. Florida’s restriction went into effect last week and bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant.

Business Weekly

Monday mornings

The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week.

Colorado has pulled in the opposite direction, becoming a haven for abortion in a region of largely conservative states. Last year, the state passed a law that shields those seeking abortions, and those providing them, from prosecution in other states where it’s restricted, such as Florida.

Now, antiabortion activists are testing the boundaries of those bans in court. That includes a Texas man who is petitioning a court to authorize an obscure legal action to find out who allegedly helped his former partner obtain an out-of-state abortion.

Those out-of-state abortions are in part why Cobalt’s funding for practical support — mainly travel expenses — exceeded it’s aid for the procedure itself.

Bedayn is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

Advertisement Advertise With Us

Featured Local Savings