| | |
Family Support Act with Unofficial Annotations, 27 FAM. L.Q. 91 | | (1993), and John J. Sampson, Uniform Interstate Family Support | | Act (1996), Statutory Text, Prefatory Note, and Commissioners | | Comments (with More Unofficial Annotations), 32 FAM. L.Q. 385 | | (1998). |
|
| | | In accordance with the congressional mandate, by 1998 all U.S. | | jurisdictions had enacted UIFSA. Thus, the several states have | | had between four and eight years of experience with the | | various iterations of the Act. Moreover, there has been an | | extraordinary amount of comprehensive training about the Act | | by the child support enforcement agencies throughout the | | nation and associated agencies and organizations of those | | agencies, e.g.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, | | Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE); National Child | | Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA); Eastern Regional | | Interstate Child Support Association (ERICSA); and, Western | | Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council (WICSEC). As a | | consequence, the provisions of UIFSA are far more familiar to | | those who must administer it than ever was true of its | | predecessor acts, URESA and RURESA. |
|
| | | In 2000 the child-support community again requested that the | | Act be reviewed and amendments suggested as appropriate. In | | response to this request, the Conference leadership appointed | | a new Drafting Committee (the earlier Committee had been | | disbanded). A single meeting in March 2001 led to significant | | substantive and procedural amendments that ultimately were | | approved by the Conference at its Annual Meeting in August, | | 2001. None of the amendments, however, make a fundamental | | change in the policies and procedures established in UIFSA | | 1996. The widespread acceptance of UIFSA is due primarily to | | the fact that representatives of the child support enforcement | | community mentioned above participated actively in the | | drafting of each version of the Act, including the amendments | | of 2001. In sum, although two sets of amendments have been | | propounded since the initial 1992 version of UIFSA, its basic | | principles have remained constant. |
|
| | | II. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF UIFSA |
|
| | | 1. RECIPROCITY NOT REQUIRED BETWEEN STATES. Reciprocal laws, | | the hallmark of RURESA and URESA, are not required under | | UIFSA. Although reciprocity became irrelevant in this country | | with the universal adoption of UIFSA, reciprocity continues to | | be an issue with regard to the recognition and enforcement of | | support orders of foreign countries and their political | | subdivisions, Sections 102(21), 104, 308. Respect and | | tolerance for the laws of other states and nations in order to | | facilitate child support |
|
|
