| Although this section is a product of the 2001 amendments, in |
| fact it combines provisions formerly found in Sections 202 and |
| 206(b) into a single, comprehensive provision. Section 202 |
| took account of the fact that assertion of long-arm |
| jurisdiction over a nonresident results in a one-state |
| proceeding, notwithstanding the fact that the parties reside |
| in different States. Section 206(b) made a vital contribution |
| to the exercise of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to |
| modify and continuing jurisdiction to enforce support orders |
| if one of the parties to an original proceeding in the forum |
| State subsequently left the State after the initial support |
| order was issued. Indeed, it is far more common for a support |
| order to be issued in conjunction with a divorce or |
| determination of parentage in which both the obligor and |
| obligee are residents of the forum than to be issued as a |
| result of an assertion of long-arm jurisdiction. Note that |
| either the petitioner or the respondent may be the nonresident |
| party (either of whom may be the obligor or the obligee). And, |
| also note that absent this provision the ordinary intrastate |
| substantive and procedural law of the forum would apply to |
| either fact situation without reference to the fact that one |
| of the parties is a nonresident. In sum, whether the matter at |
| hand involves establishment of an original support order or |
| enforcement or modification of an existing order. If one of |
| the parties resides outside the forum State, the nonresident |
| may avail himself or herself of the special evidentiary and |
| discovery provisions provided by UIFSA. |
