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

country;
(2) the contesting party timely challenges the exercise of jurisdiction in the other
State state or the foreign country; and
(3) if relevant, this State state is the home State state of the child.
(b) A tribunal of this State state may not exercise jurisdiction to establish a support order
if the [petition] or comparable pleading is filed before a [petition] or comparable pleading is filed
in another State state or a foreign country if:
(1) the [petition] or comparable pleading in the other State state or foreign country
is filed before the expiration of the time allowed in this State state for filing a responsive
pleading challenging the exercise of jurisdiction by this State state;
state; and
the child.
(2) the contesting party timely challenges the exercise of jurisdiction in this State
(3) if relevant, the other State state or foreign country is the home State state of
Comment
Under the one-order system established by UIFSA, it was necessary to provide a
procedure to eliminate the multiple orders so common under RURESA and URESA. This
requires cooperation between, and deference by, state tribunals in order to avoid issuance of
competing support orders. To this end, tribunals are expected to take an active role in seeking out
information about support proceedings in another state or foreign country concerning the same
child. Depending on the circumstances, one of the two tribunals considering the same support
obligation should decide to defer to the other. The inclusion of a foreign country in this
investigation facilitates the goal of a “one-order world” for a support obligation.
UIFSA (1992) took a significant departure from the approach adopted by the UCCJA
(1986) (“first filing”), by choosing the “home state of the child” as the primary factual basis for
resolving competing jurisdictional disputes. Not coincidentally, this had previously been the
choice for resolving jurisdiction conflicts of the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28
U.S.C. Section 1738A (1980). Given the pre-emptive nature of the PKPA, and the possibility
that custody and support will both be involved in some cases, the PKPA/UIFSA choice for
resolving disputes between competing jurisdictional assertions was followed in 1997 by the
79