- A tribunal of this state may exercise jurisdiction to establish a support order if the petition or comparable pleading is filed after a pleading is filed in another state or a foreign country only if:
- The petition or comparable pleading in this state is filed before the expiration of the time allowed in the other state or the foreign country for filing a responsive pleading challenging the exercise of jurisdiction by the other state or the foreign country;
- The contesting party timely challenges the exercise of jurisdiction in the other state or the foreign country; and
- If relevant, this state is the home state of the child.
- A tribunal of this 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 or a foreign country if:
(1) The petition or comparable pleading in the other state or foreign country is filed before the expiration of the time allowed in this state for filing a responsive pleading challenging the exercise of jurisdiction by this state;
(2) The contesting party timely challenges the exercise of jurisdiction in this state; and
(3) If relevant, the other state or foreign country is the home state of the child.
Source: L. 93: Entire article R&RE, p. 1585, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2015: Entire section amended, (HB 15-1198), ch. 173, p. 548, § 7, effective July 1.
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 decision of NCCUSL to replace the UCCJA with the UCCJEA. If the child has no home state, however, “first filing” will control.