UIFSA

CS 158 Continuing, Exclusive Jurisdiction

10/96 Revised 01/12/16 Training Completed 07/15/15

U.C.A. 78B-14-205, 211

 

Statutory Authority

 

Pursuant to Utah Code Annotated (U.C.A.) 78B-14-205.  Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.

“(1) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order, and:

(a) at the time of the filing of a request for modification, this state is the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued; or

(b) even if this state is not the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued, the parties consent in a record or in open court that the tribunal of this state may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order.

(2) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state may not exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order if:

(a) all of the parties who are individuals file consent in a record with the tribunal of this state that a tribunal of another state that has jurisdiction over at least one of the parties who is an individual or that is located in the state of residence of the child may modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction; or

(b) its order is not the controlling order.

(3) If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act or a law substantially similar to the act, which modifies a child support order of a tribunal of this state, tribunals of this state shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.

(4) A tribunal of this state that lacks continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order may serve as an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to modify a support order issued in that state.

(5) A temporary support order issued ex parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing, exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.”

 

NOTE:  In this situation, the state issuing the order may lose CEJ.

 

Pursuant to U.C.A. 78B-14-211.  Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify spousal support order.

“(1) A tribunal of this state issuing a spousal support order consistent with the law of this state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the spousal support order throughout the existence of the support obligation.

(2) A tribunal of this state may not modify a spousal support order issued by a tribunal of another state or foreign country having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over that order under the law of that state or foreign country.

(3) A tribunal of this state that has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a spousal support order may serve as:

(a) an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to enforce the spousal support order issued in this state; or

(b) a responding tribunal to enforce or modify its own spousal support order.”

 

Once a court/tribunal has acquired continuing, exclusive jurisdiction (CEJ) it retains the authority over a specific matter.  A state has CEJ if it is the state that issued the controlling order and either the child, the individual custodial parent (CP), or the non-custodial parent (NCP) resides in that state.  Since there is only “one” controlling order per case, only one state can have CEJ; this makes the jurisdiction exclusive.  CEJ is continuing, because once a state has CEJ, that state maintains CEJ as long as one of the people in the order/case still resides within that state.  Therefore, the authority to modify that order is restricted, and only the state with CEJ can modify the controlling order.

 

When Continuing, Exclusive Jurisdiction is Lost

 

A state with CEJ maintains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over that order and has the sole legal authority to modify the order unless one of the following conditions exist.

 

1.                   The NCP, CP, and the child(ren) move out of the state where the order was issued.  Although the controlling order still governs the obligation for prospective enforcement.  For example:
Facts:

a.                   John and Wendy are divorced in California in May, 1994.

b.                  In December, 1994, John moves to Colorado and Wendy requests that California collect her child support.  An interstate petition is sent to Colorado and Colorado establishes a URESA order in May, 1995.

c.                   In October, 1995, Wendy and her child move to Utah.
EXAMPLE:
There are two support orders, one in California and one in Colorado.  Colorado attempts to enforce the order, but because there are multiple orders they must first make a controlling order determination.

i.                     California order:  All of the parties have left the state of California; therefore, California no longer has CEJ.

ii.                   Colorado order:  Colorado has CEJ because John is living in Colorado.  Therefore, the Colorado order becomes the controlling order and is the order that must be enforced prospectively. 

 

2.                   Each individual party files a notarized written consent form with the issuing tribunal to have a tribunal in another state modify the order.  
For example:
Facts:

a.                   John and Wendy are divorced in California in May, 1994.

b.                  In December, 1994, John moves to Colorado and Wendy requests that California collect her child support.  An interstate petition is sent to Colorado and Colorado establishes a URESA order in May, 1995.

c.                   In October, 1995, Wendy closes her case with California and moves to Utah.

d.                  Colorado attempts to enforce the order, but because there are multiple orders they must first make a controlling order determination and determine CEJ.

i.                     California order:  All of the parties have left the state of California; therefore, California no longer has CEJ.

ii.                   Colorado order:  Colorado has CEJ because John is living in Colorado. Therefore, the Colorado order becomes the controlling order and is the order that must be enforced prospectively.

e.                  In January, 1996, Wendy requests that Utah help her modify the Colorado order.
EXAMPLE:
John and Wendy both agree to have the State of Utah modify the Colorado order.  However, Utah does not have CEJ and it must have CEJ in order to proceed with a modification.

John and Wendy first file a notarized written consent form with the State of Colorado (tribunal issuing the order) consenting/requesting that the State of Utah be allowed to assume CEJ and register the Colorado order for purposes of modification.  A copy of the written request form is also sent to the State of Utah.  Upon receipt of the notarized written consent form:

i.                     Colorado loses CEJ;

ii.                   Utah registers the Colorado order for purposes of modification; and,

iii.                  Utah assumes CEJ of the order.

 

Procedures – Determine CEJ - One Order

 

If there is only one order in the case or a controlling order determination has already been made, follow the procedures below to determine if the issuing state has CEJ; e.g., you are reviewing the order for modification, if appropriate.

 

1.                   Does the child, the CP, or the NCP  live in the state that issued the order?

a.                   YES - That state has CEJ and the order is the controlling order.  This state is responsible for the review and, if appropriate, modification of the order.

b.                  NO - The issuing state does not have CEJ, but the order is the controlling order (even if everyone has left the state).  The responding state (also known as the non-requesting state) is responsible for the review and, if appropriate, modification of the order.  For example:

Facts:

i.                     The CP and child live in Idaho.

ii.                   The NCP lives in Utah.

iii.                  The order was issued by the State of Nevada

EXAMPLE:

The CP applies for IV-D services with the state of Idaho and requests a review of the order.  However, since none of the parties live in Nevada, Nevada loses CEJ over the order.  But the Nevada order is the only order; therefore, it becomes the controlling order and is the only order that can be registered in another state for purposes of modification.

 

Because Idaho is requesting the review, Utah becomes the responding state (or non-requesting state) and is responsible for the review and, if appropriate, must register the order for purposes of modification.

 

Procedures – Determine CEJ - Multiple Orders

 

If there are two or more orders in the case and you are making a controlling order determination, follow the procedures below to determine which state(s) has CEJ.

 

1.                   Do any of the parties (CP, NCP, or child(ren) live in a state that issued an order?

a.                   YES - How many states are involved?

i.                     1 state – that state has CEJ and the order is the controlling order.  The state is responsible for the review, and, if appropriate, modification of the order.

ii.                   2 states or more – is one of those states the child’s home state? 

 

NOTE:  A state becomes the child’s home state if the child has resided with one of the parents or a guardian in that state for at least six months; or, since birth, if the child is less than six months old.

A.                  Yes – that state has CEJ and the order is the controlling order.  The state is responsible for the review, and, if appropriate, modification of the order.  For example:

Facts:

1)                  The CP lives in Wyoming.

2)                  The NCP lives in Oregon.

3)                  The child lives in Idaho with the grandma.

4)                  Orders were issued by:

a)                  the State of Idaho;

b)                  the State of Oregon; and,

c)                   the State of Montana.

EXAMPLE:

Two of the parties (NCP and child) are currently living in a state that issued an order; Idaho and Oregon.  Therefore, both of the states have CEJ. 

 

Whenever there is more than one CEJ state, you must determine if one of the states is the child(ren)’s home state.  Since the child lives with the grandma in Idaho, the Idaho order must be recognized as the CEJ, controlling order.  Idaho then becomes the state responsible for the review and, if appropriate, modification of the order.

B.                  No – if there is not a child’s home state, then the state with the most recent order is the CEJ state and the order is the controlling order.  That state is responsible for the review, and, if appropriate, modification of the order.  For example:

 Facts:

1)                  The CP lives in Wyoming.

2)                  The NCP lives in Oregon.

3)                  The child moved to Idaho to live with the grandma two months ago.

4)                  Orders were issued by:

a)                  the State of Wyoming – May 1995;

b)                  the State of Oregon – October 1993; and,

c)                   the State of Montana – July 1994.

                                                                                EXAMPLE:

Two of the parties (CP and NCP) are currently living in a state that issued an order; Wyoming and Oregon. Therefore, both of the states have CEJ. 

 

Whenever there is more than one CEJ state, you must determine if one of the states is the child(ren)’s home state.  Since the child moved to Idaho only two months ago to live with the grandma, there is not a home state. 

 

If there is not a home state, you must recognize the most recent order.  The Wyoming order is the most recent order and must be recognized as the CEJ, controlling order.  Wyoming then becomes the state responsible for the review and, if appropriate, modification of the order.

b.                  NO – There is NOT a CEJ state.  Therefore, a new order must be issued, which will be recognized as the controlling order, and that state has CEJ.  

Facts:

1)                  The CP and child live in Wyoming.  The CP requests that Wyoming enforce the child support order.

2)      The NCP lives in Colorado.

3)      Orders were issued by:

a)      the State of Idaho; and

b)      the State of Oregon.

EXAMPLE:

Wyoming attempts to enforce the child support order, but because there are multiple orders it must first make a controlling order determination.

I.                    Idaho order:  None of the parties reside in the state of Idaho; therefore, Idaho no longer has CEJ.

II.                  Oregon order:  None of the parties reside in the state of Oregon; therefore, Oregon no longer has CEJ.

 

No state has CEJ, therefore, when there is not a CEJ state, the responding state, Wyoming, must issue a new order.  The new order will be recognized as the controlling order and Wyoming obtains CEJ.

 

.