I don't know why, but I have a feeling CO might have something that contradicts that. I think it had something to do with being able to sue the father for the birthing expenses.
I do remember coming across two states that allowed for such weirdness. I'll look after I get the kiddies settled for breakfast.
I'll keep looking, but here's what I have so far:
Law Lawyer Attorney Littleton Colorado Divorce Annulment Property Parenting Time Child Support Custody Visitation Modification Legal Separation Common Law Marriage Paternity Marital Agreements Jefferson Adams Denver Arapahoe Douglas
Child support is always modifiable based upon changed circumstances of a substantial and continuing nature; however, it is generally modifiable retroactive to the date of the filing of a motion requesting the relief. A modification prior to the date of filing of an applicable motion is appropriate if there was a change in the primary physical residence of the child based upon mutual agreement of the parties
The latter just barely makes is possible for a retroactive order, but I still have to see if one can file for an order after the child is an adult. Doesn't seem likely - even in CO.
Child Support Modification & Termination | Colorado Divorce & Family Law Guide
This one says essentially the same thing, however, I added it because of the provision on termination due to age. If there are 10 kids and 9 of them reach adulthood, payor still has to pay until the 10th kid reaches age 19 - or s/he goes to court to get a modification. Not that unusual, I guess, but worth nothing for people with multiple kids.
OK. Found the statute:
http://www.brettw******.com/component/content/article/200-reference-material/787-crs-14-10-115-colorado-child-support-guidelines
It looks a little complicated. A few of the relevant items:
"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."
I searched a number of other sites and I can't find anything definitive, so the following is my interpretation. If ex sues for CS, I would encourage OP to seek an attorney for a definite answer, but I believe the following will be correct (or, at least, close).
1. CO allows for retroactive CS orders, but only back to the date when living situation changed.
2. In OP's case, when the living situation changed, the child came to live with him. Thus, if CO does allow a retroactive, it should be Mom paying Dad, and not vice versa because the order can only go back to the date when circumstances changed and not before.
3. Assuming that this was the youngest child of this couple, support ends automatically at age 19.
4. If the child is in college, it is possible to file for a new order or modification to cover the child during college. This can be requested at any time before the child turns 21. It can be retroactive to the time when the child started college. However, since the child is now living on her own, she will probably be considered emancipated and no CS should be ordered under this section, anyway.
ETA: Oops. That may all be moot (sorry for the possibly unnecessary info).
Dad says that he is not on the birth certificate. There doesn't appear to be any existing order for support or paternity. Therefore, the first step would be that Mom would have to ask the court to establish paternity. That may not be possible:
{Spent a lot of time searching various sites because the available information is contradictory}
OK. Found the rules:
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-184.htm
An action to determine the existence of the father and child relationship may be brought at any time prior to the child's eighteenth birthday by the mother or father of said child, by the child, or by the delegate child support enforcement agency. If, however, the statute of limitations in effect at the time of the child's birth was less than eighteen years, the delegate child support enforcement agency may bring an action on behalf of the said child at any time prior to the child's twenty-first birthday. An action brought by a child whose paternity has not been determined may be brought at any time prior to the child's twenty-first birthday.
OK, maybe I'm stupid, but I'm having a really hard time reconciling the two bolded section. The only thing I can figure out is that the second bolded section applies only to the statute of limitations exception. So, if that's is correct, then it's 18 years, unless CO used a shorter period of time 19 years ago - in which case it would be 21 years. Wow. My head is spinning.
That doesn't change my view. I don't think I'd do anything unless Mom files. If she does, I'd go see an attorney.