The other side of the coin follows logically. Just as Subsection (a) defines the retention of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, by clear implication the subsection also identifies how jurisdiction to modify may be lost. That is, if all the relevant persons--the obligor, the individual obligee, and the child--have permanently left the issuing State, the issuing State no longer has an appropriate nexus with the parties or child to justify the exercise of jurisdiction to modify its child-support order. See In re Marriage of Erickson, Wash. App. Div. 3 2000, 991 P.2d 123, 98 (Wash. App. 2000); Groseth v. Groseth, 600 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 1999). Further, the issuing tribunal has no current information about the factual circumstances of anyone involved, and the taxpayers of that State have no reason to expend public funds on the process. Note, however, that the original order of the issuing tribunal remains valid and enforceable. That order is in effect not only in the issuing State but also in those States in which the order has been registered. It also may be registered and enforced in additional States even after the issuing State has lost its power to modify its order, see Sections 601-604, infra. The original order remains in effect until it is properly modified in accordance with the narrow terms of Sections 609-612, infra.

Subsection (b)(1), reworded in 2001, explicitly states that the issuing State may also lose its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify if the parties consent in a record for another State to assume jurisdiction to modify (even though one of the parties or the child continues to reside in the issuing State). Filing of the record in the issuing State divests the issuing tribunal of its CEJ. See Peace v. Peace, 737 A.2d 1164 (N.J. Super. 1999). The Drafting Committee anticipated that such an agreement would seldom occur because of the almost universal desire of each party to prefer his or her local tribunal; but, the Committee also believed that the parties should be allowed to agree upon an alternate forum if they choose to do so. The 2001 rewording of this provision also makes this procedure available in a situation in which all the parties and the child have left the issuing State and are in agreement that a tribunal of the State in which only the movant resides shall assume modification jurisdiction.