## Facts

- A Georgia court entered a divorce decree in 1976 awarding the mother permanent custody of the parties’ minor child and granting the father visitation.
- After the divorce, the mother and child continued to live in Georgia; the father moved to Colorado.
- In June 1980, the eight-year-old child traveled to Boulder, Colorado for a one-month visit with the father.
- At the end of the visit, the father refused to return the child to Georgia and filed in Boulder District Court seeking temporary and permanent custody.
- The father asserted “emergency” jurisdiction under Colorado’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), relying on professional reports stating the child was hyperactive and had an adjustment disorder.
- The mother appeared and moved to dismiss, arguing Georgia retained jurisdiction under its prior custody decree and Colorado lacked UCCJA jurisdiction.
- The Boulder District Court denied dismissal, found Georgia no longer had jurisdiction, accepted emergency jurisdiction, and awarded temporary custody to the father.
- The mother sought extraordinary relief in the Colorado Supreme Court to prohibit further custody proceedings in Boulder District Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Colorado could exercise UCCJA “emergency” jurisdiction over custody despite an existing Georgia custody decree and Georgia’s continuing jurisdiction.
2. Whether the father’s retention of the child after visitation and evidence of hyperactivity/adjustment disorder constituted an “emergency” permitting Colorado to assume custody jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court made its rule to show cause absolute and granted prohibition.
- The Court held Georgia retained continuing jurisdiction over custody because the mother and child remained residents of Georgia and the child’s presence in Colorado was temporary.
- The Court held the asserted circumstances did not satisfy the UCCJA emergency criteria and could not justify Colorado’s assumption of custody jurisdiction.
- The Boulder District Court was barred from proceeding further in the custody matter premised on emergency jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Under the UCCJA, the state that entered the original custody decree generally retains continuing jurisdiction when the custodial parent and child remain there; a child’s temporary visit to another state does not transfer jurisdiction.
- UCCJA “emergency” jurisdiction is narrow and intended for immediate protection of a child from abandonment or threatened mistreatment/abuse, not for ordinary custody modification disputes.
- A parent may not create or exploit jurisdiction in a new state by wrongfully retaining a child after visitation and then seeking a custody change there.
- Prohibition is an appropriate remedy when a trial court’s custody order rests on an improper assertion of subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJA.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court prohibited the Boulder District Court from exercising custody jurisdiction because Georgia’s decree and continuing jurisdiction controlled, and the father’s asserted psychological concerns did not amount to a UCCJA emergency allowing Colorado to intervene.


Brock v. District Court of Cnty. of Boulder, 620 P.2d 11 (Colo. 1980)