LD 986
pg. 22
Page 21 of 77 An Act To Enact the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act Amendments of 1996 an... Page 23 of 77
Download Bill Text
LR 467
Item 1

 
Under the one-order system established by UIFSA, it is
necessary to provide a new procedure to eliminate the multiple
orders so common under RURESA and URESA. This requires
cooperation between, and deference by, sister-state tribunals
in order to avoid issuance of competing support orders. To
this end, tribunals are expected to take an active role in
seeking out information about support proceedings in other
States concerning the same child. Depending on the
circumstances, one or the other of two tribunals considering
the same support obligation should decide to defer to the
other. In 1992 UIFSA took a significant departure from the
approach adopted by the UCCJA ("first filing"), by choosing
the "home State of the child" as the primary method for
resolving competing jurisdictional disputes, thereby adopting
the choice of the federal PARENTAL KIDNAPPING PREVENTION ACT,
28 U.S.C. 1238A Section (C). Given the pre-emptive nature of
the PKPA, and the possibility that custody and support will
both be involved in some cases, the PKPA/UIFSA choice for
resolving disputes between competing jurisdictional assertions
was followed in 1997 by the decision of the Conference to
replace the UCCJA with the UCCJEA. If the child has no home
State, however, "first filing" will continue to control.

 
§2965.__Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child

 
support order

 
1.__Tribunal has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.__A
tribunal of this State that has issued a support order
consistent with the laws of this State has and shall exercise
continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support
order if the order is the controlling order and:

 
A.__At the time of the filing of a request for
modification this State is the residence of the obligor,
the individual obligee or the child for whose benefit the
support order is issued; or

 
B.__Even if this State is not the residence of the
obligor, the individual obligee or the child for whose
benefit the support order is issued, the parties consent
in a record or in open court that the tribunal of this
State may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its
order.

 
2.__Tribunal may not exercise continuing, exclusive
jurisdiction.__A tribunal of this State that has issued a
child support order consistent with the laws of this State may
not exercise its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify
the
order if:

 
A.__All of the parties who are individuals file consent in a
record with the tribunal of this State that a tribunal of


Page 21 of 77 Top of Page Page 23 of 77