LD 986
pg. 71
Page 70 of 77 An Act To Enact the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act Amendments of 1996 an... Page 72 of 77
Download Bill Text
LR 467
Item 1

 
another with different ages regarding the duration of the child-
support obligation. In those circumstances, whether the
obligation ended, extended, or was curtailed was left almost to
chance. In a RURESA proceeding, on the obligee's motion some
States would increase the duration of the support obligation
when the obligor resided in a State with a higher age for the
child support obligation. Other States decreased the obligor's
duration of child support when the obligor countered with a
motion that the new RURESA support order should reflect a
shorter duration of the obligation in accordance with local law.
Multiple durations of the support obligation, as well as
multiple support amounts, were both major problem areas
addressed by UIFSA.

 
From its original promulgation UIFSA determined that the
duration of child-support obligation should be fixed by the
controlling order, see Robdau v. Commonwealth, Virginia Dept.
Social Serv., 543 S.E.2d 602 (Va. App. 2001). If the language
was insufficiently specific before the 2001, the amendments
should make this decision absolutely clear. The original time
frame for support is not modifiable unless the law of the
issuing State provides for modification of its duration. Some
courts have sought to subvert this policy by holding that
completion of the obligation to support a child through age 18
established by the now-completed controlling order does not
preclude the imposition of a new obligation thereafter to
support the child through age 21 or even to age 23 if the
child is enrolled in higher education. Subsection (d) is
designed to eliminate these attempts to create multiple,
albeit successive, support obligations. Consistent with this
principle, if a domestic violence protective order has been
entered with a child-support provision that has a duration
less than the general child support law of the State that
issues the controlling order, the law of that State determines
the maximum duration. In sum, absent tribunal error the first
child-support order issued under UIFSA will invariably be the
initial controlling order. The initial controlling order may
be modified and replaced by a new controlling order in
accordance with the terms of Sections 609-615, but the
duration of the child-support obligation remains constant,
even though virtually every other aspect of the original order
may be changed. This is also the standard in situations
involving multiple valid child-support orders--a problem that
will progressively decrease over time as RURESA multiple
orders expire or a determination of the initial controlling
order is made under Section 207, supra. Once a controlling
order is identified under these standards, the duration of the
support obligation is fixed.

 
Relettered Subsection (e) provides that upon modification the
new order becomes the one order to be recognized by all UIFSA
States, and the issuing tribunal acquires continuing,
exclusive jurisdiction. Good practice mandates that the
tribunal should


Page 70 of 77 Top of Page Page 72 of 77