CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Enforcement
......Interstate Enforcement (UIFSA)
.........Conflicting Jurisdictions and Orders
13 Cards On This Topic:

Cal. court's jurisdiction to establish support order after pleading filed in another state.

Cal. courts' continuing jurisdiction over its child support orders.

Tribunal of this state as initiating tribunal.

Deciding which child support order prevails.

Under UIFSA, where CA court made c/s order, that court had jurisdiction to enforce a later UT judgment as to amount of c/s arrearages.

CA court had SMJ under UIFSA to modify Mex. c/s order where H could not prove he continually resided in Mex.; W presented enough evidence H resided in CA and H could point to nothing in the record showing he had a residence in Mex.

Trial court did not have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify CA c/s order after parties and their child moved to other states and did not consent in writing to CA's continuing jurisdiction or authority.

Under UIFSA, CA court could not transfer continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to AL as parties did not file writing consenting to AL jurisdiction and F continued to reside in CA.

RURESA/UIFSA do not provide for exclusive jurisdiction over spousal support orders, hence conflicting orders possible.

When Cal. assumed continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over Idaho c/s order in order to modify it, it had to apply Cal. law to determine amount of c/s owed.

(Former) Family Code §4908 doesn't divest Cal. court from making support order, even where divorce pending or granted in Ga., so long as Ga. proceeding doesn't raise issue of support.

Modification of out-of-state orders

Enforcement of multiple child support orders from different obligees.