Since the enactment of the uniform act in Colorado, there are now two distinct courses of action which a demanding state may take with respect to one who does not carry out his obligations of support to his family, namely: (1) Extradition on a criminal charge of nonsupport, and (2) the initiation of civil proceedings under the uniform act. Conrad v. McClearn, 166 Colo. 568, 445 P.2d 222 (1968).

Either or both courses may be pursued, and the election lies wholly within the demanding state and the obligee. Conrad v. McClearn, 166 Colo. 568, 445 P.2d 222 (1968).

The time to raise a defense is when there is an attempt to punish under both the criminal and the civil proceedings. Conrad v. McClearn, 166 Colo. 568, 445 P.2d 222 (1968).

If a trial court in its discretion believes that proper support can be assured without applying the statute, it is free to do so. Jackson v. Jackson, 157 Colo. 564, 404 P.2d 281 (1965).

The jurisdiction of the district court of Adams county, which arose from the filing and disposition of the divorce action did not preclude the district court of the city and county of Denver from proceeding pursuant to the uniform act when the mother and children had moved to Nevada. The question of support of minor children is a question which can be litigated separate and apart from divorce proceedings. Scheer v. District Court, 147 Colo. 265, 363 P.2d 1059 (1961).

Equitable doctrine of unclean hands will not relieve father of his duty to support his child under this article. Kansas State Dept. of Soc. & Rehabilitation Servs. v. Henderson, 620 P.2d 60 (Colo. App. 1980).

Rights and duties under marriage dissolution decree unaffected by court's support order. A support order by a Colorado court, as the responding court in a proceeding under this article, does not affect the parties' rights and duties under a dissolution of marriage decree. Kansas State Dept. of Soc. & Rehabilitation Servs. v. Henderson, 620 P.2d 60 (Colo. App. 1980); In re Enewold, 709 P.2d 1385 (Colo. App. 1985).

In a proceeding for the dissolution of marriage in which no personal service in the state of Colorado had been made upon the husband, the trial court could not issue an award of child support and order that it should supersede any award for child support which the wife had obtained through this article. Offerman v. Alexander, 185 Colo. 383, 524 P.2d 1082 (1974).

Fact that post-dissolution matter was filed under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act did not give the court a proper basis for exercising jurisdiction as to child support where wife's only contact with Colorado was her granting of consent for the child to reside in this state with his father. In re Zinke, 967 P.2d 210 (Colo. App. 1998).

Mother is free to pursue remedies for child support collection available pursuant to §§ 19-6-101 and 26-13-105. Father's argument that support must be established pursuant to this act because the mother and children are nonresidents of Colorado is invalid. People ex rel. A.K., 72 P.3d 402 (Colo. App. 2003).

Applied in County of Clearwater v. Petrash, 198 Colo. 231, 598 P.2d 138 (1979); Rohrer v. Kane, 198 Colo. App. 231, 609 P.2d 1121 (1980).