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

case. Only enforcement or modification of the support portion of such decrees or orders are
relevant. Other issues, such as custody and visitation, or matters relating to other aspect of the
divorce decree, are collateral and have no place in a UIFSA proceeding.
Subsection (b) grants a litigant a variety of limited immunity from service of process during
the time that party is physically present in a state for a UIFSA proceeding. The immunity
provided is in no way comparable to diplomatic immunity, however, which should be clear from
reading subsection (c) in conjunction with the other subsections.
Subsection (c) does not extend immunity to civil litigation unrelated to the support
proceeding which stems from contemporaneous acts committed by a party while present in the
state for the support litigation. For example, a petitioner involved in an automobile accident or a
contract dispute over the cost of lodging while present in the state does not have immunity from
a civil suit on those issues.
SECTION 315. NONPARENTAGE AS DEFENSE. A party whose parentage of a
child has been previously determined by or pursuant to law may not plead nonparentage as a
defense to a proceeding under this [Act] [act].
Comment
Arguably this section does no more than restate the basic principle of res judicata.
However, there is a great variety of state law regarding presumptions of parentage and available
defenses after a prior determination of parentage. As long as a proceeding is brought in an
appropriate forum, this section is intended neither to discourage nor encourage collateral attacks
in situations in which the law of another jurisdiction is at significant odds with local law. If a
collateral attack on a parentage decree is permissible under the law of the issuing jurisdiction,
such a proceeding must be pursued in that forum and not in a UIFSA proceeding.
This section mandates that a parentage decree rendered by another tribunal “pursuant to
law” is not subject to collateral attack in a UIFSA proceeding. Of course, an attack on an alleged
final order based on a fundamental constitutional defect in the parentage decree is permissible in
the forum state. For example, a responding tribunal may find that another tribunal acted
unconstitutionally by denying a party due process due to a failure of notice and opportunity to be
heard or a lack of personal jurisdiction over a party who did not answer or appear. Insofar as the
latter ground is concerned, the universal enactment of the long-arm statute asserting personal
jurisdiction over a respondent if the child “may have been conceived” in the forum state may
greatly reduce successful attacks on a parentage determination. See Section 201(a)(6).
Similarly, the law of the issuing state or foreign country may provide for a determination
of parentage based on certain specific acts of the obligor, such as voluntarily acknowledging
parentage as a substitute for a decree. UIFSA also is neutral regarding a collateral attack on such
a parentage determination filed in the issuing tribunal. In the meantime, however, the responding
108