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

In the future, assuming that there will be a number of countries with the Convention in
force with the United States under subdivision (D), the list of those countries will be well
publicized. This, of course, will almost certainly result in the universal enactment of UIFSA
(2008) by the states (with encouragement by a federal enabling statute).
Finally, there are very many foreign nations that do not, and will not, fit any of the
definitions of “foreign country” established in the act. At present, there are 192 member states in
the United Nations. Recognition and enforcement of support orders from nations that do not
meet the definition of “foreign country” may be enforceable under the doctrine of comity.
Section 104.
Subsections (6) “foreign support order,” (7) “foreign tribunal,” and (12) “issuing foreign
country” set down parallel tracks for a foreign support order, foreign tribunal, and foreign issuing
country throughout the act.
Subsection (17) “obligor,” and subsection (16) “obligee,” are denominated in the
Convention as “debtor” and “creditor.” The terms inherently contain the legal obligation to pay
or receive support, and implicitly refer to the individuals with a duty to support a child.
“Obligor” includes an individual who is alleged to owe a duty of support as well as a person
whose obligation has previously been determined. The one-order system of UIFSA can succeed
only if the respective obligations of support are adjusted as the physical possession of a child
changes between parents or involves a third-party caretaker. This must be accomplished in the
context of modification, and not by the creation of multiple orders attempting to reflect each
changing custody scenario. Obviously this issue is of concern not only to interstate and
international child-support orders, but applies to intrastate orders as well.
Subsection (18) “outside this state,” requires careful reading. This phrase is used in the
act when the application of the provision is to be as broad as possible. Rather than limit the
application of certain provisions of the act to other states, foreign countries as defined in
subsection (5), or even countries whose orders are entitled to comity under Section 104, all
nations and political subdivisions are truly “outside this state.” For example, that term is found in
Sections 316 through 18, which allow a tribunal of this state to accept information or assistance
from everywhere in the world (in the court’s discretion as to its effect).
The definitions in subsections (23) “responding state,” and (24) “responding tribunal,”
accommodate the direct filing of a petition under UIFSA without the intervention of an initiating
tribunal. Both definitions acknowledge the possibility that there may be a responding state and a
responding tribunal in a situation where there is no initiating tribunal. Under current practice, the
initial application for services will be generated by a support enforcement agency or a central
authority of a foreign country.
As discussed above in connection with subsections (5) through (7), the amended
definition in subsection (26) “state,” eliminates the legal fiction that a foreign country can be a
U.S. state, and clarifies and implements the purpose of the act to enforce an international support
order under state law. In UIFSA (2008), the term clearly is intended to refer only to a state of the
United States or to other designated political entities subject to federal law.
68