In Interest of A.R.C. — Colorado appeals court sends child-support arrears calculation back for recalculation

Case
In the Interest of A.R.C. and G.E.C., Children, and Concerning J.B.E.
Court
Colorado Court of Appeals
Judge
Judge Kuhn; Judge Welling; Judge Meirink
Date Decided
October 8, 2026
Docket No.
25CA1786
Topics
Child support; Retroactive support; Arrearages; Appellate procedure
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

J.B.E. (mother) and D.E.C. (father) are the parents of A.R.C. and G.E.C. In July 2024, the Prowers County Department of Human Services filed a child-support petition naming itself and mother as petitioners. After unsuccessful efforts to locate father, he was served in January 2025.

The district court later ordered father to pay $1,673 per month in permanent child support and entered a $20,316 arrearages judgment in mother’s favor for retroactive support. Father, proceeding pro se, appealed.

The Court’s Holding

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the permanent child-support order. The district court could include father’s bonus income in gross income; the governing statute includes bonuses and does not require findings about whether they were irregular or predictable. The court also rejected father’s challenge to the calculation of mother’s income because he did not provide the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, requiring the appellate court to presume the record supported the district court’s findings.

The court reversed the arrearages judgment. Under section 14-10-115(2)(a), retroactive support may begin only after the latest of the parties’ physical separation, the petition’s filing, or service on the responding parent. The record showed that father was served in January 2025, but the district court calculated retroactive support from the July 2024 filing date. The case was remanded to recalculate arrears from the latest permissible date and for any further appropriate proceedings.

Key Takeaways

  • Bonus income may be included in gross income for child-support purposes even when it fluctuates or is nonrecurring.
  • An appellant challenging evidentiary support must provide the relevant hearing transcript; otherwise, the appellate court presumes the record supports the judgment.
  • For an initial support order, retroactive support cannot begin before the latest date authorized by section 14-10-115(2)(a), including service on the respondent.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces that Colorado’s child-support definition of gross income broadly encompasses actual monetary receipts, including bonuses. It also highlights a strict statutory limit on retroactive support: courts must identify and apply the latest triggering date specified by the statute.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top