In 2001 a significant, albeit subtle amendment was made to Subsection (a)(1). The intent was not to make a substantive change, but rather to clarify the original intent of the Drafting Committee. First, the time to measure whether the issuing tribunal has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its order, or whether all parties and child have left the State, is explicitly stated to be at the time of filing a proceeding to modify the child support order. Second, substitution of the term "is the residence" for the term "remains the residence" makes clear that any interruption of residence of a party between the date of the issuance of the order and the date of filing the request for modification does not affect jurisdiction to modify. Thus, if there is but one order, it is the controlling order in effect and enforceable throughout the United States, notwithstanding the fact that everyone has left the issuing State. If the order is not modified during this time of absence, a return to reside in the issuing State by a party or child will immediately identify the proper forum at the time of filing a proceeding for modification. Although the statute does not speak explicitly to the issue, temporary absence should be treated in a similar fashion. Temporary employment in another State may not forfeit a claim of residence in the issuing State, State ex rel. Havlin v. Jamison, 971 S.W.2d 938 (Mo. App. 1998). Of course, residence is a fact question for the trial court, keeping in mind that the question is residence, not domicile.

A substantive change is made by the 2001 amendment that adds entirely new language to Subsection (a)(2). From the beginning of the implementation of the CEJ principle, questions have been raised about why a tribunal may not modify its own order if the parties agree that it should do so even after both parties have left the State. The move of the parties and the child from the State may have been of a very short distance and, although the parties reside outside the issuing State, they may prefer to continue to be governed by the same issuing tribunal because they continue to have a strong affiliation with the issuing tribunal.