Gyger v. Clement (North Carolina 2022)
Under the Hague Convention, the respondent parent must have minimum contacts with a country for the country to have jurisdiction to enter a child support order. Switzerland, on behalf of mother, requested North Carolina register a Swiss child support order for enforcement. The father argued the Swiss Court had no personal jurisdiction over him, which is required as part of the Hague Convention. The North Carolina district court agreed. It found the father hadn’t received the required notice and opportunity to be heard. The mother appealed.
Read MoreWilliams v. Wiley (North Carolina 2022)
A clerical error will not render a Notice of Registration of Foreign Support Order invalid. The parent claiming improper service must provide evidence of the defect. The Wake County child support office filed a Notice of Registration of Foreign Support Order, which was confirmed. The mother filed to dismiss the confirmation order, arguing the wrong person was served and she didn’t live at the address where the notice was mailed. The trial court denied her motion, and she appealed.
Read MoreChalmers v. Burrough (Kansas 2021)
A parent’s failure to comply with the registration procedure for UIFSA doesn’t deprive a district court of general subject matter jurisdiction over support orders. The father filed to register and modify a Florida support order in Kansas but failed to attach a copy of the original order, as required by statute. The court temporarily modified support. The mother filed to dismiss the action based on the father’s failure to comply with the registration procedure, arguing the court was without jurisdiction over the order.
Read MoreHalterman v. Halterman (North Carolina 2021)
A foreign support order must be properly registered under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) for a court to have subject matter jurisdiction for enforcement and modification. The mother, a resident of North Carolina, filed to register three Florida custody and support orders. The father, a resident of Virginia, filed to dismiss for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to comply with UIFSA. The trial court granted the motion and the mother appealed.
Read MorePeople in Interest of S.C.
The section of Colorado statute which adopted the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) gives parties the right to testify by phone. The state of Missouri asked the state of Colorado to establish paternity with respect to the minor child. The father lived in Colorado. The mother had an outstanding warrant for her arrest in…
Read MoreHart v. Hart (North Carolina 2019)
Failing to include a corrected support order with a packet for registration is procedural, not jurisdictional, and doesn’t necessarily bar a court from modifying the support order. The parents divorced in Washington, and the father was ordered to pay support. The support order was amended twice, once to reflect the mother and children’s move to…
Read MoreWatkins v. Benjamin (North Carolina 2019)
For purposes of UIFSA jurisdiction, a new child support order isn’t established because the obligor of the order changes. The parents divorced in North Carolina, and the order granted custody to the father and ordered the mother to pay support. The mother moved to Maryland and the children eventually came to live with her. The…
Read MoreGyger v. Clement (North Carolina 2018)
When registering an order sent from a foreign reciprocating country, notice of a pending hearing is properly sent to the agency that initiated the action. Switzerland requested that North Carolina register a support order. The trial court didn’t register the order. It found that the notice provided to the father of the initial hearing didn’t…
Read MoreClark v. Clark (Nebraska 2018)
The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) gives a court with proper subject matter and personal jurisdiction the ability to determine a controlling child support order. The father in this case was subject to two child support orders, one from Wisconsin and one from Nebraska. He filed a petition requesting a Nebraska district court vacate…
Read MoreHeisinger v. Riley (Mississippi 2018)
A Mississippi court can modify the support provisions of a properly registered child support order. The mother registered an Iowa child support order in Mississippi. She then requested a modification, which the chancellor denied. The chancellor found that the mother had not showed the order met the requirements for a modification under Iowa law. The…
Read MoreMississippi Dep’t of Human Services v. Porter (Mississippi 2017)
UIFSA does not require an initiating tribunal or registered child support order for a responding tribunal to have subject matter jurisdiction to establish a support order. Additionally, UIFSA calls for the responding state to apply its laws and procedures to the order, including its age of majority. The state of Illinois requested Mississippi’s assistance in…
Read MoreState of Tennesse ex rel. Spurlock v. Torres (Tennessee 2017)
A child support order is void if the court did not have personal jurisdiction over the respondent parent. In interstate actions, there are specific requirements for personal jurisdiction over a nonresident parent, one of which is the parent has entered an appearance or filed a responsive document. In this contempt proceeding, the father, a Texas…
Read MoreHamilton v. Young (Mississippi 2017)
A Mississippi court does not have jurisdiction to modify the child support provisions of an out-of-state divorce decree unless neither of the parents reside in the issuing state or the parties agree in writing to transfer jurisdiction. The issuing state retains jurisdiction until one of these conditions is met. In this case, a Mississippi chancery…
Read MoreStack v. Stack (Tennessee 2016)
A Tennessee court may modify another state’s child support order when the order has been registered in Tennessee, the court has personal jurisdiction over the parties, and the parties have provided the issuing state with written consent to Tennessee’s ongoing jurisdiction. In this case, the parties filed a Notice of Filing of Agreed Order with…
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Lohman (Colorado 2015)
When enforcement of a judgment obtained in a foreign country is sought, the Colorado Court must determine if the foreign court had jurisdiction over the Colorado resident and also whether the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Lohman (Colorado 2015)
When enforcement of a judgment obtained in a foreign country is sought, the Colorado Court must determine if the foreign court had jurisdiction over the Colorado resident and also whether the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Read MoreGroseth v. Groseth (Nebraska 1999)
A Nebraska court assumes continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify another state’s order once both parents and the child no longer reside in the state that issued the order.
Read MoreGroseth v. Groseth (Nebraska 1999)
A Nebraska court assumes continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify another state’s order once both parents and the child no longer reside in the state that issued the order.
Read MoreCain v. Jacox (Kansas 2015)
The doctrine of res judicata will not bar a claim for post judgment interest on a child support obligation when a parent was not a party in a prior proceeding or in privity with a party to a prior proceeding.
Read MoreMartin v. Phillips (Kansas 2015)
In a proceeding to collect arrears, apply the longer of the statute of limitations period between the issuing state and the forum state.
Read MoreUnited States v. Morton (Federal, US Supreme Court, 1984)
An employer is not liable for complying with an income withholding order appearing to be valid on in face from a foreign state tribunal.
Read MoreGentzel v. Williams (Kansas 1998)
Provisions of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, the Interstate Income Withholding Act, and the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act are applied to the facts of each case.
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Myers (Kansas 2002)
When both parties to a divorce and the subject child or children have moved out of Kansas, Kansas loses continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order.
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Metz (Kansas 2003)
Whether the district court has the authority under Uniform Interstate Family Support Act to modify its child support order involves whether it has subject matter jurisdiction, which is a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review.
Read MoreDia v. Oakley (Kansas 2009)
The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, known as UIFSA, allows support orders entered in other states and some foreign countries to be registered and enforced in Kansas.
Read More