Personal jurisdiction acquired by a tribunal of this state in a proceeding under this article or other law of this state relating to a support order continues as long as a tribunal of this state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its order or continuing jurisdiction to enforce its order as provided by sections 14-5-205, 14-5-206, and 14-5-211.
C.R.S. § 14-5-202
COMMENT
It is a useful legal truism after a tribunal of a state issues a support order binding on the parties, which must be based on personal jurisdiction by virtue of Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (1978) and Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 354 U.S. 416 (1957), jurisdiction in personam continues for the duration of the support obligation absent the statutorily specified reasons to terminate the order. The rule established by UIFSA is that the personal jurisdiction necessary to sustain enforcement or modification of an order of child support or spousal support persists as long as the order is in force and effect, even as to arrears, see Sections 205-207, 211, infra. This is true irrespective of the context in which the support order arose, e.g., divorce, UIFSA support establishment, parentage establishment, modification of prior controlling order, etc. Insofar as a child-support order is concerned, depending on specific factual circumstances a distinction is made between retaining continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify an order and having continuing jurisdiction to enforce an order, see Sections 205 and 206, infra. Authority to modify a spousal-support order is permanently reserved to the issuing tribunal, Section 211, infra.