(1) "In Mississippi, petitions
to modify foreign child support orders are
governed
by Mississippi's version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act,"
codified in Mississippi Code Annotated sections 93-25-1 through XX-XX-XXX (Rev.
2004). Nelson v. Halley, 827 So.2d 42, 44(¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2002). The UIFSA governs the question of subject matter jurisdiction,
it may be raised at any point during the proceedings. See Esco v. Scott, 735 So.2d 1002, 1006(¶ 14) (Miss.1999).
The Mississippi
Supreme Court, in Nelson, set forth the basic
framework of the UIFSA:
The first step under the proceedings authorized by this state's
version of UIFSA is to file the foreign judgment in an appropriate chancery
court. Once the judgment is registered, the subject matter of this state's
jurisdiction on that foreign judgment depends on the residences of the
individuals affected. The subject matter is alterable by consent. Regardless of
consent, the judgment can be enforced much more readily than it may be
modified.
Id. at 45(¶ 10).
Child
support provisions are governed by
Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-25-101 of the UIFSA, which states the
following:
(1) If
Section 93-25-107]
does not apply, except as otherwise provided in Section 93-25-108, upon
petition, a tribunal of this state may modify a child support order issued in
another state which is registered in this state, if, after notice and hearing,
it finds that:
(a) The
following requirements are met:
(i)
Neither the child, nor the obligee who is an individual, nor the obligor
resides in the issuing state;
(ii) A petitioner who is a
nonresident of this state seeks modification; and
(iii) The
respondent is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the tribunal of this
state; or
(b) This
state is the state of residence of the child, or a party who is an individual
is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the tribunal of this state, and all
of the parties who are individuals have filed consents in a record in the
issuing tribunal for a tribunal of this state to modify the support order and
assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
(2)
Modification of a registered child support order is subject to the same
requirements, procedures and defenses that apply to the modification of an
order issued by a tribunal of this state and the order may be enforced and
satisfied in the same manner.
(3) Except
as otherwise provided in Section 93-25-108, a tribunal of this state may not modify
any aspect of a child support order that may not be modified under the law of
the issuing state, including the duration of the order of support. If two (2)
or more tribunals have issued child support orders for the same obligor and the
same child, the order that controls and must be so recognized under the
provisions of Section 93-25-21 establishes the aspects of the support order
which are nonmodifiable.
(4) In a
proceeding to modify a child support order, the law of the state that is
determined to have issued the initial controlling order governs the duration of
the obligation of support. The obligor's fulfillment of the duty of support
established by that order precludes imposition of a further obligation of
support by a tribunal of this state.
(5) On
issuance of an order by a tribunal of this state modifying a child support
order issued in another state, the tribunal of this state becomes the tribunal
of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-101 (emphasis added).
To put the issue simply, if the
parties to a child support order move to different states, the payor must seek
modification in the payee’s state of residence. See Patterson
vs. Patterson, 20 So.3d 65, 69-71 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)(California no
longer had exclusive jurisdiction to modify after a mother and child moved to
Mississippi and the father to Maryland.
Maryland, not Mississippi was the state with jurisdiction to hear the
mother’s petition to increase child support.) Ironically, if the payee is seeking modification, they must go to the payor's state. This is a very complicated area.
No comments:
Post a Comment