An income-withholding order issued in another state may be sent by or on behalf of the obligee, or by the support enforcement agency, to the person defined as the obligor’s employer under the income-withholding law of this state without first filing a petition or comparable pleading or registering the order with a tribunal of this state.
Source: L. 97: Entire part amended with relocations, p. 538, § 11, effective July 1; entire section amended, p. 1263, § 5, effective July 1. L. 2000: Entire section amended, p. 1709, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2003: Entire section amended, p. 1256, § 27, effective July 1, 2004.
Editor’s note: This section was formerly numbered as § 14-5-501 IP(a), and the other provisions of former § 14-5-501 were relocated to § 14-5-502 in 1997.
Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 1997 act amending this section, see section 1 of chapter 236, Session Laws of Colorado 1997.
COMMENT
In 1984 Congress mandated that all states adopt procedures for enforcing income-withholding orders of sister states. Direct recognition by the out-of-state obligor’s employer of a withholding order issued by another state long was sought by support enforcement associations and other advocacy groups. UIFSA (1992) recognized such a procedure. This article was extensively amended in 1996, but was the subject only of clarifying amendments in 2001.
Section 501 is deliberately written in the passive voice; the act does not restrict those who may send an income-withholding order across state lines. Although the sender will ordinarily be a child support enforcement agency or the obligee, the obligor or any other person may supply an employer with the income-withholding order. “Sending a copy” of a withholding order to an employer is clearly distinguishable from “service” of that order on the same employer. Service of an order necessarily intends to invoke a tribunal’s authority over an employer doing business in the state. Thus, for there to be valid “service” of a withholding order on an employer in a state, the tribunal must have authority to bind the employer. In most cases, this requires the assertion of the authority of a local responding tribunal in a “registration for enforcement” proceeding. In short, the formality of “service” defeats the whole purpose of direct income withholding across state lines.
The process contemplated in this article is direct “notification” of an employer in another state of a withholding order without the involvement of initiating or responding tribunals. Therefore, receipt of a copy of a withholding order by facsimile, regular first class mail, registered or certified mail, or any other type of direct notice is sufficient to provide the requisite notice to trigger direct income withholding in the absence of a contest by the employee-obligor. This process is now widely used by not only child support enforcement agencies, but also by private collection agencies or private attorneys acting on behalf of obligees.
Except as provided in Section 507, Administrative Enforcement of Orders, none of the sections in Article 5 are intended to apply to foreign support orders. While it is appropriate for U.S. employers to enforce sister state income-withholding orders routinely, enforcement of the wide variety of possible foreign support orders provides too many complexities and challenges to require an employer to interpret and enforce ostensible foreign income-withholding orders.