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

imposition of a further obligation of support by a tribunal of this State state.
(e) On the issuance of an order by a tribunal of this State state modifying a child-support
order issued in another State state, the tribunal of this State state becomes the tribunal having
continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
(f) Notwithstanding subsections (a) through (e) and Section 201(b), a tribunal of this state
retains jurisdiction to modify an order issued by a tribunal of this state if:
(1) one party resides in another state; and
(2) the other party resides outside the United States.
Comment
The Play-away Rule. As long as the issuing tribunal has continuing, exclusive
jurisdiction over its child-support order, a responding tribunal is precluded from modifying the
controlling order. See sections 205 through 207. UIFSA (1992) made critical choices regarding
modification of an existing child-support order. First, the “one-order” rule was to be paramount.
Second, the issuing tribunal had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its order as long as
a party or the child continued to reside in the issuing state. The original order remained in force
as the controlling order until modified by another tribunal. Third, a separate procedure was
created for modification of an existing child-support order when all parties and the child moved
from the issuing state and acquired new residences. The key was that the movant seeking
modification be “a nonresident of this state.” The deciding factor, determined after extended
debate, centered on curbing or eliminating the undesirable effect of “ambush or tag” jurisdiction,
e.g., the likelihood that the parties would vie to strike first to obtain a home-town advantage.
Although constitutional under Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604 (1990), such lawsuits
would discourage continued contact between the child and the obligor, or between the parties for
fear of a lawsuit in a distant forum. Thus, the goal was to avoid the situation in which
modification would be available in a forum having personal jurisdiction over both parties based
solely on the ground that service of process was made in the would-be forum state.
Under subsection (a)(1), before a responding tribunal may modify the existing controlling
order, three specific criteria must be satisfied. First, the individual parties and the child must no
longer reside in the issuing state. Second, the party seeking modification, usually the obligee,
must register the order as a nonresident of the forum. That forum is almost always the state of
residence of the other party, usually the obligor. A colloquial (but easily understood) description
is that the nonresident movant for modification must “play an away game on the other party’s
home field.” Third, the forum must have personal jurisdiction over the parties. By registering the
support order, the movant submits to the personal jurisdiction of the forum through seeking
affirmative relief. On rare occasion, personal jurisdiction over the respondent may be supplied by
long-arm jurisdiction. See Section 201.
142