COMMENT

Subsection (a) integrates the Convention support order into the registration for enforcement procedure set forth in Sections 601 through 608. A state support enforcement agency and a tribunal will use basically the same procedures for a Convention order under this article as would be used in a non-Convention proceeding.

From inception, UIFSA contained detailed provisions for substantive procedures for interstate child- support orders. To facilitate expedited processing, detailed statutory instructions have encouraged uniformity of legal documents. The Convention follows this precedent. The list of documents to be provided, however, is somewhat different than the documents described in Sections 311 and 602. In order to ensure that a document satisfying the requirements of the Convention will be accepted by a support enforcement agency or tribunal, subsection (a) identifies the documents required to accompany an application under the Convention.

Several of the required documents may be unfamiliar in the United States, e.g., the authority to provide an abstract or an extract of an order rather than the complete text of an order under paragraph (b)(1); the requirement for a statement of enforceability of the order under paragraph (b)(2); proof that the respondent had proper notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard if the respondent did not appear and was not represented under (b)(3); and proof that the applicant received free legal assistance in the issuing country under paragraph (b)(6).

Subsection (c) provides that a petitioner may request only partial enforcement of a support order, See Section 709. infra, which speaks to partial enforcement by a tribunal.

Subsections (d) and (e) authorize action by a tribunal available under the Convention that may not be available under other state law. Subsection (d) permits the tribunal to vacate registration, acting on its own motion, under certain exceptional circumstances, and subsection (e) requires that notice be promptly provided of any such order vacating registration. Such ex officio review, if used to refuse recognition of an order, is in tension with the core UIFSA policy of requiring recognition. In any event, the subsections are not a vehicle for a review of the merits of the decision. An example would be useful here, but there is none in the Explanatory Report to the Convention, just the negative reference that a country could not use this to enforce a policy against ordering support for a child born out of wedlock. http://www.hcch.net/upload/expl38.pdf. Perhaps an example could be that the court might reject an application to establish support from a biological parent whose rights had been terminated and the child was subsequently adopted.

Convention source: art. 25. Documents; art. 21. Severability and partial recognition and enforcement; art. 22. Grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement; art. 23. Procedure on an application for recognition and enforcement; art. 25. Documents.

Related to Convention: art. 11. Application contents; art. 20. Bases for recognition and enforcement.