2008 Amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ARTICLE 8 INTERSTATE RENDITION SECTION 801. GROUNDS FOR RENDITION. .................................................................120 SECTION 802. CONDITIONS OF RENDITION. ..............................................................121 ARTICLE 9 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS SECTION 901. UNIFORMITY OF APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION. ................122 [SECTION 902. TRANSITIONAL PROVISION ................................................................122 [SECTION 902 903. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. ..............................................................122 SECTION 905 904. REPEALS. ...........................................................................................122 SECTION 903 905. EFFECTIVE DATE. ............................................................................122 54
UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT PREFATORY NOTE I. History of Uniform Family Support Acts A. URESA and RURESA In 1950 the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, a.k.a. Uniform Law Commission (NCCUSL or ULC), began a series of uniform acts dealing with cases involving establishment, enforcement, and modification of orders for “any duty of support” across state lines. This evolving process started with a revolutionary idea entitled the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), promulgated in 1950, and amended in 1952 and 1958. Further amendments in 1968 were so significant that the act was renamed the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (RURESA). Ultimately, all the states enacted one or more versions of the reciprocal support enforcement acts. A comprehensive history of the creation process from 1950 through 1968 is provided by William J. Brockelbank & Felix Infausto, Interstate Enforcement of Family Support (Bobbs-Merrill Co., 2d ed. 1971). As with most revolutions, without it subsequent development would not have been possible. B. UIFSA (1992) (1996) By 1988, however, problems had arisen regarding the application of RURESA in practice. After four iterations that lasted over four decades, revisiting the subject was deemed necessary. A drafting committee began to prepare amendments for RURESA, but the task proved more formidable than expected. The result was the promulgation of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA (1992)), which was designed to serve as a complete replacement for URESA and RURESA. In 1993 Arkansas and Texas were the first to enact the new act, and within three years thirty-five states had adopted it. The year 1996 was an eventful one for UIFSA. First, a drafting committee was convened in Spring 1996 in response to requests from representatives of employer groups for specific statutory directions regarding interstate child-support income withholding orders. Second, the child-support community (especially the state IV-D programs funded by federal subsidies) requested a substantive and procedural review. As a result, the NCCUSL at its annual conference in July adopted significant amendments and promulgated UIFSA (1996). Less than one month later, the U.S. Congress assured that nationwide acceptance of the amended Act was virtually certain. In the “welfare reform” legislation passed in August 1996, officially known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), the enactment of UIFSA, as amended, was mandated as a condition of state eligibility for the federal funding of child support enforcement, as follows: Sec. 321. Adoption of Uniform State Laws (42 U.S.C. § 666) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: 55
Page 1 and 2: SUBMITTED BY THE FAMILY LAW SECTION
Page 3 and 4: EXHIBIT A UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY
Page 5 and 6: DRAFTING COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS TO
Page 7 and 8: UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT A
Page 9: SECTION 606. PROCEDURE TO CONTEST V
Page 13 and 14: Uniform Interstate Family Support A
Page 15 and 16: Beginning in June 2003, and continu
Page 17 and 18: UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT A
Page 19 and 20: country in an initiating State from
Page 21 and 22: (19) (24) “Responding tribunal”
Page 23 and 24: Subsection (3) “Convention,” id
Page 25 and 26: The vast bulk of child support esta
Page 27 and 28: order from a nation state that is e
Page 29 and 30: ARTICLE 2 JURISDICTION SECTION 201.
Page 31 and 32: Under RURESA, multiple support orde
Page 33 and 34: For example, a challenge to a reque
Page 35 and 36: country; (2) the contesting party t
Page 37 and 38: a child-support order of a tribunal
Page 39 and 40: SECTION 206. CONTINUING JURISDICTIO
Page 41 and 42: is an individual shall determine wh
Page 43 and 44: personal jurisdiction over the obli
Page 45 and 46: of equal dignity. In allocating pay
Page 47 and 48: this State state has continuing, ex
Page 49 and 50: individual petitioner requesting af
Page 51 and 52: Comment Subsection (a) was designed
Page 53 and 54: support order is based. (d) A respo
Page 55 and 56: enforcement agency will also assist
Page 57 and 58: (f) This [Act] [act] does not creat
Page 59 and 60: SECTION 309. PRIVATE COUNSEL. An in
Page 61 and 62:
documents must conform substantiall
Page 63 and 64:
hearing is presumed to have been re
Page 65 and 66:
tribunal must give effect to such a
Page 67 and 68:
substantive law should apply. Becau
Page 69 and 70:
certified statement by the custodia
Page 71 and 72:
(8) an individual who has been orde
Page 73 and 74:
ARTICLE 5 ENFORCEMENT OF SUPPORT OR
Page 75 and 76:
(3) medical support, whether in the
Page 77 and 78:
Subsection (c)(3) provides that med
Page 79 and 80:
SE C T I ON 506. CONTEST BY OBL IGO
Page 81 and 82:
support enforcement agency shall re
Page 83 and 84:
enforceable in the responding state
Page 85 and 86:
Convention. Because child-support e
Page 87 and 88:
SECTION 604. CHOICE OF LAW. (a) Exc
Page 89 and 90:
identical manner as all other oblig
Page 91 and 92:
the order (roughly the equivalent o
Page 93 and 94:
to vacate the registration has the
Page 95 and 96:
precludes the nonregistering party
Page 97 and 98:
(1) the following requirements are
Page 99 and 100:
The underlying policies of this pro
Page 101 and 102:
continuing, exclusive jurisdiction
Page 103 and 104:
SE C T I ON 613. JURISDICTION TO MO
Page 105 and 106:
pursuant to this section is the con
Page 107 and 108:
ARTICLE 7 DETERMINATION OF PARENTAG
Page 109 and 110:
ehalf of a child, made through a ce
Page 111 and 112:
SE C T I ON 702. APPLICABILITY. Thi
Page 113 and 114:
country. (d) A tribunal of this sta
Page 115 and 116:
in a Convention country and to an i
Page 117 and 118:
interstate child support orders. To
Page 119 and 120:
and partial recognition and enforce
Page 121 and 122:
might raise a challenge based on la
Page 123 and 124:
such rules permitted under the Conv
Page 125 and 126:
egistered partner in a Convention c
Page 127 and 128:
ORDER. SECTION 711. MODIFICATION OF
Page 129 and 130:
Convention source: art. 38. Protect
Page 131 and 132:
SECTION 802. CONDITIONS OF RENDITIO
show all

2008 Amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?