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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(f) Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.—In order to satisfy (42 U.S.C. § 654(20)(A)), on and after January 1, 1998, each state must have in effect the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, as approved by the American Bar Association on February 9, 1993, together with any amendments officially adopted before January 1, 1998, by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996). In accordance with this “federal mandate,” by 1998 all U.S. jurisdictions had en-acted UIFSA (1996). C. UIFSA (2001) In 2000 the child-support community again requested that the act be reviewed and amended as appropriate in the light of the years of experience with the 1992 and 1996 versions. Further, beginning in 1993 there had been an extraordinary amount of comprehensive training on the act by the child-support enforcement agencies throughout the nation and associated agencies and organizations of those agencies, e.g., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE); National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA); Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association (ERICSA); and Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council (WICSEC). A significant consequence of this attention was that the provisions of UIFSA were far more familiar to those who administered it than ever was true of its predecessor acts, URESA and RURESA. The drafting committee meeting in 2001 led to several substantive and procedural amendments, which clarified and extended the act without making any fundamental change in the earlier policies and procedures. The widespread acceptance of UIFSA has been due primarily to the fact that representatives of the child support enforcement community mentioned above participated actively in the drafting of every version of the act, including the current proposal, UIFSA (2008). When Congress mandated that UIFSA (1996) must be in place in all states by 1998, most interested parties viewed that action as an unalloyed benefit for the promulgation of the uniform act. Although all states promptly adopted UIFSA (1996), in retrospect the federal action became a mixed blessing when it partially froze further development of the act. The currently NCCUSLapproved version is UIFSA (2001) and UIFSA (1996) has been withdrawn as being no longer appropriate for enactment. Nonetheless, at present UIFSA (1996) remains in force in the majority of states. The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has routinely granted waivers to any state requesting authority to enact UIFSA (2001). As of December 2008, however, only twenty-two states have received the waiver and enacted UIFSA (2001). Moreover, UIFSA (2008) is waiting in the wings in the expectation that the new Hague Maintenance Convention will move forward. Details about this proposal follow. For comprehensive discussions of the events described above, see Unif. Interstate Fam. Support Act, 9 Part IB U.L.A. 159, 291, 471 (2005); John J. Sampson and Barry J. Brooks, 56
Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (2001) with Prefatory Note and Comments (with Still More Unofficial Annotations), 36 Fam. L.Q. 329 (2002); John J. Sampson, Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (1996), Statutory Text, Prefatory Note, and Commissioners Comments (with More Unofficial Annotations), 32 Fam. L.Q. 385 (1998); John J. Sampson, Uniform Interstate Family Support Act with Unofficial Annotations, 27 Fam. L.Q. 91 (1993). Case law developments are found in Kurtis D. Kemper, Construction and Application of Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, 18 A.L.R. 6th 97 (originally published in 2001); Kurtis D. Kemper, Validity, Construction, and Application of Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738B—State Cases, 18 A.L.R. 6th 97 (originally published in 2006). The original act and two sets of amendments were propounded in 1992, 1996, and 2001. Throughout, the basic principles have remained constant, while the details have been refined by experience in the field. This version is the third set of significant amendments to the act, referred to in these comments as UIFSA (2008). II. International Maintenance Orders A. URESA and RURESA; Minimal Attention to International Orders URESA (1950, 1952, 1958) did not take into account enforcement of child-support or spousal-support orders that involved a foreign country. “State” was defined as one of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico. The 1958 amendments to URESA expanded the definition to “any state, territory or possession of the United States and the District of Columbia in which this or a substantially reciprocal law has been enacted.” RURESA (1968) made a significant change to the complete absence of attention to international support orders by expanding the definition of “state” to “any foreign jurisdiction in which this or substantially similar reciprocal law is in effect.” Contemporaneous commentary indicated that the beneficiary of this amendment would be Canada or certain Canadian provinces. The thought was expressed that the United States Department of State might negotiate a treaty with Canada, or that under a redefinition of the term “state” several Canadian provinces would be included as jurisdictions that would reciprocally enforce U.S. support orders. B. UIFSA (1992) (1996); Minor Change in Treatment of International Orders The basic approach of UIFSA (1992) was to maintain the RURESA provision quoted above with the following minor modification: “State . . . includes a foreign jurisdiction that has established procedures for issuance and enforcement of support orders which are substantially similar to the procedures under this [Act].” UIFSA (1996) continued the basic provisions by adding that the foreign jurisdiction might have enacted a law that was substantially similar to URESA or RURESA. Further, an amendment to Section 304 recognized that courts in Canadian provinces entered provisional orders for support to accompany their outgoing requests for establishment and enforcement, and required a provisional order from a state of the United States in order to establish a support order in Canada. 57
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 and 10: SECTION 606. PROCEDURE TO CONTEST V
Page 11: 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?