The 2001 addition to Subsection (a) specifically recognizes the doctrine of comity as a legitimate function of state law that on a proper showing provides for the recognition of a foreign support order, see Mississippi Dept. Human Svcs. v. Shelnut, 772 So.2d 1041 (Miss. 2000). Although the determination by the U.S. State Department that a foreign nation is a reciprocating country is binding on all states, recognition of foreign support orders through comity is dependent on the law of each UIFSA State. The reference to "remedies under other law" is intended to recognize the principle of comity as developed in the forum State by statutory or common law, rather than to create a substantive right independent of that law.

New Subsection (b)(1) gives notice that UIFSA is not the only means for establishing or enforcing a support order with an interstate aspect. Examples abound. A potential child-support

obligee may voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of another State to seek the full range of desired relief under the law of that State using intrastate procedures, rather than resorting to the interstate procedure provided by UIFSA. A nonresident married parent may choose to file a proceeding in the forum State for dissolution of the marriage, including property division and spousal support, and in conjunction seek an order regarding child custody and visitation and child support. A parent may submit to the jurisdiction of another State for a determination of parentage and child support. A support order resulting from each of these scenarios implicates UIFSA. Invariably the issuing tribunal will have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over its controlling child or spousal support orders as provided by Sections 205, 207, 211, infra, with all of the attendant application of the Act to those orders.

On the other hand, Subsection (b)(2) states what is clear under U.S. Supreme Court decisions; the bases of jurisdiction for child custody and visitation orders and the jurisdiction for child-support orders run on separate tracks, compare May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (1953) with Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (1978). If the child-support order is sought under the authority of UIFSA, the most important aspect of this rule is that a child-support obligee utilizing the provisions of UIFSA to establish child support across State lines submits to jurisdiction for child support only, and does not submit to the