In 2003, this section was formerly numbered as § 14-5-103.

COMMENT

The existence of procedures for interstate establishment, enforcement, or modification of support or a determination of parentage in UIFSA does not preclude the application of the general law of the forum. Even if the parents live in different states, for example, a petitioner may decide to file an original proceeding for child support (and most likely for other relief as well) directly in the state of residence of the respondent and proceed under that forum’s generally applicable support law. In so doing, the out-of-state petitioner submits to the personal jurisdiction of the forum and, for the most part, is unaffected by UIFSA. Once a child-support order has been issued, this option is no longer available to interstate parties. Under UIFSA, a state may not permit a party to proceed to obtain a second support order; rather, in further litigation the tribunal must apply the act’s provisions for enforcement of an existing order and limit modification to the strict standards of UIFSA.

This section facilitates the recognition and enforcement of a support order from a nation state that is entitled to have its orders recognized by comity, but is not a “foreign country” under Section 102(5). The insertion of the term “foreign support order” to replace “support order of a foreign country or political subdivision” in subsection (a) helps clarify application of “comity” for support enforcement cases. In UIFSA, four types of nation states are defined as “foreign countries”: (1) Convention countries; (2) countries with bilateral agreements with the federal government; (3) countries with bilateral agreements with particular states; and (4) countries with similar support laws. However, orders of countries that do not fall within this definition may nevertheless be enforced under “comity”. Applying comity to enforce a support order of a tribunal of another nation state intends courtesy and good will, and extends due regard for the legislative, executive, and judicial acts of another nation which is not a “foreign country” as defined in Section 102.

Although the determination by the United States Department of State that a foreign nation is a reciprocating country is binding on all states, recognition of a support order through comity is dependent on the law of each state. The reference to “remedies under other law” is intended to recognize the principle of comity as developed in the forum state by statutory or common law, rather than to create a substantive right independent of that law.

Subsection (b)(1) gives notice that UIFSA is not the only means for establishing or enforcing a support order with an interstate aspect. A potential child-support obligee may voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of another state to seek the full range of desired relief under the law of that state using intrastate procedures, rather than resorting to the interstate procedure provided by UIFSA. A nonresident married parent may choose to file a proceeding in the forum state for dissolution of the marriage, including property division and spousal support, and in conjunction seek an order regarding child custody and visitation and child support. A parent may submit to the jurisdiction of another state for a determination of parentage and child support. A support order resulting from each of these scenarios implicates UIFSA. Invariably the issuing tribunal will have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over its controlling child support or spousal-support order as provided by Sections 205, 207, and 211, infra, with all of the attendant application of the act to those orders. Likewise, the order or judgment of another state can be enforced without the necessity of registration under UIFSA by resort to other post-judgment enforcement remedies, such as lien, levy, execution, and filing claims in probate or bankruptcy actions.

On the other hand, subsection (b)(2) makes clear that jurisdiction to establish child custody and visitation orders is distinct from jurisdiction for child-support orders. For the former, jurisdiction generally rests on the child’s connection with the state rather than personal jurisdiction over the respondent. See UCCJEA § 201; May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (1953) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Under the Supreme Court’s case law, jurisdiction to establish a child-support order requires personal jurisdiction over the respondent. See Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (1978). If the child-support order is sought under the authority of UIFSA, the most important aspect of this rule is that a child-support obligee utilizing the provisions of UIFSA to establish child support across state lines submits to jurisdiction for child support only, and does not submit to the jurisdiction of the responding state with regard to child custody or visitation.