1 of 100

Uniform Interstate Family Support Act: The Basics

Melissa St. Croix

and

Jill E. Mueller

Wisconsin Department of Children and Families

1

2 of 100

1993 WI Act 326

2

3 of 100

Terms and General Principles
Establishment
Enforcement
Modification
Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction
Choice of Law
Case Closure

3

4 of 100

Terms and General Principles
Establishment
Enforcement
Modification
Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction
Choice of Law
Case Closure

4

5 of 100

UIFSA Terms

Intrastate: both parties present in one state.

Direct (one-state): involves one state taking action against a parent in another state. Must have personal jurisdiction.

Interstate (two states): involves two states—the initiating state and the responding state

5

6 of 100

UIFSA Terms, cont.

“Initiating tribunal”: the tribunal of a state or foreign country from which a petition or comparable pleading is forwarded or in which a petition or comparable pleading is filed for forwarding to another state or foreign country.

6

7 of 100

UIFSA Terms, cont.

“Responding state”: a state in which a petition or comparable pleading for support or to determine parentage of a child is filed or to which a petition or comparable pleading is forwarded for filing from another state or a foreign country.

7

8 of 100

UIFSA Terms, cont.

“Issuing State”: state in which a tribunal issues a support order or a judgment determining parentage of a child.

“Issuing Tribunal”: means the tribunal of a state or foreign country that issues a support order or a judgment determining parentage of a child.

8

9 of 100

UIFSA Terms, cont.

“Obligee” = Custodial parent

“Obligor” = Noncustodial parent

Wis. Stat. s. 769.101(12)

(12) “Obligee” means any of the following:

(a) An individual to whom a duty of support is or is alleged to be owed or in whose favor a support order or a judgment determining parentage of a child has been issued.

(b) A foreign country, state, or political subdivision of a state to which the rights under a duty of support or support order have been assigned or which has independent claims based on financial assistance provided to an individual obligee in place of child support.

(c) An individual seeking a judgment determining parentage of the individual’s child.

(d) A person that is a creditor in a proceeding under subch. VII.

Wis. Stat. s. 769.101(13)

(13) “Obligor” means an individual, or the estate of a decedent, to whom any of the following applies:

(a) The individual or decedent owes or is alleged to owe a duty of support.

(b) The individual or decedent is alleged but has not been adjudicated to be a parent of a child.

(c) The individual or decedent is liable under a support order.

(d) The individual or decedent is a debtor in a proceeding under subch. VII.

UIFSA Section 102(16), (17)

Section 466 of the Social Security Act

10 of 100

Terms and General Principles
Establishment
Enforcement
Modification
Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction
Choice of Law
Case Closure

10

11 of 100

Establishment

Two ways parentage and/or support can be established when Noncustodial parent lives in a different state:

11

12 of 100

Establishment

Two ways parentage and/or support can be established when Noncustodial parent lives in a different state:

1. One-state using long-arm jurisdiction

12

13 of 100

Establishment

Two ways parentage and/or support can be established when Noncustodial parent lives in a different state:

1. One state using long-arm jurisdiction

2. Interstate (two-state)

13

14 of 100

One State Establishment

14

15 of 100

Long-Arm Jurisdiction

Exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident individual

Wis. Stat. § 769.201

15

769.201 Bases for jurisdiction over nonresident.

(1m) In a proceeding to establish or enforce a support order or to determine parentage of a child, a tribunal of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident individual, or the individual’s guardian or conservator, if any of the following applies:

(a) The individual is personally served with a summons or other notice within this state.

(b) The individual submits to the jurisdiction of this state by consent, by entering a general appearance or by filing a responsive document having the effect of waiving any contest to personal jurisdiction.

(c) The individual resided with the child in this state.

(d) The individual resided in this state and provided prenatal expenses or support for the child.

(e) The child resides in this state as a result of the acts or directives of the individual.

(f) The individual engaged in sexual intercourse in this state and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse.

(g) The individual asserted parentage of a child in a declaration of paternal interest filed with the department of children and families under s. 48.025 or in a statement acknowledging paternity filed with the state registrar under s. 69.15 (3) (b) 1. or 3.

(gm) The individual was conclusively determined from genetic test results to be the father under s. 767.804.

(h) There is any other basis consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.

(2m) The bases of personal jurisdiction set forth in sub. (1m) or in any other law of this state may not be used to acquire personal jurisdiction for a tribunal of this state to modify a child support order of another state unless the requirements of s. 769.611 are met or, in the case of a foreign support order, unless the requirements of s. 769.615 are met.

16 of 100

Long-Arm Jurisdiction (Section 201)

Personally served with a summons or other notice in WI
Consents to WI’s jurisdiction
Resided with the child in WI
Resided in WI and provided prenatal expenses or support for the child.
Child resides in this state as a result of the acts or directives of the individual.
Conceived child in the state
Signed a VPA (gm)
Was conclusively determined from genetic test results to be the father under s. 767.804.
Other constitutionally valid basis

16

17 of 100

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)

Wis. Ch. 822

17

18 of 100

UCCJEA Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction to establish an initial custody order is determined by “home state” or alternative grounds.
The long-arm jurisdictional basis in UIFSA does NOT apply in UCCJEA proceedings.
Parties cannot stipulate to jurisdiction under UCCJEA.

18

19 of 100

UCCJEA Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction to establish an initial custody order is determined by “home state” or alternative grounds.
The long-arm jurisdictional basis in UIFSA does NOT apply in UCCJEA proceedings.
Parties cannot stipulate to jurisdiction under UCCJEA.

19

20 of 100

UCCJEA Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction to establish an initial custody order is determined by “home state” or alternative grounds.
The long-arm jurisdictional basis in UIFSA does NOT apply in UCCJEA proceedings.
Parties cannot stipulate to jurisdiction under UCCJEA.

20

21 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #1

Q: Child is conceived in WI. Alleged father lives in Illinois. Child and Mother live in WI. Mother files a Summons and Petition for Paternity. Does this court have personal jurisdiction over the alleged father?

21

22 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #1

Yes or No?

22

23 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #1

A: Yes. Conception is one criteria for long-arm jurisdiction over the nonresident party.

23

24 of 100

Two State Establishment

24

25 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #2

Q: Child is conceived in Iowa. Alleged father continues to live in Iowa. Child and Mother move to Milwaukee. Mother receives SHARES childcare subsidy, so a referral is sent to the MKE child support agency. Should the child support agency file a paternity action in WI?

25

26 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #2

Yes or No?

26

27 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #2

A: No. Based on these facts, Father does not have minimum contacts with WI. Trying to exercise long-arm jurisdiction in this situation is not appropriate. The CSA should file an interstate IV-D case to IA, where an order will be established in IA using IA’s laws.

27

28 of 100

Two State Establishment:

Paternity Judgments

28

29 of 100

§ 767.89(3) Content of Judgment

A judgment or order determining paternity shall contain all of the following provisions:

(a) An adjudication of the paternity of the child.

(b) Orders for the legal custody of and periods of physical placement determined in accordance with s. 767.41.

(c) Support

(d) Exemption for federal tax purposes under 26 USC 151 (c).

(e) Birth costs…

(f) Costs…

29

767.89(3) Content of judgment or order. A judgment or order determining paternity shall contain all of the following provisions:

(a) An adjudication of the paternity of the child.

(b) Orders for the legal custody of and periods of physical placement with the child, determined in accordance with s. 767.41.

(bm) The information set forth in s. 767.41 (6) (h).

(c) An order requiring either or both of the parents to contribute to the support of any child of the parties who is less than 18 years old, or any child of the parties who is less than 19 years old if the child is pursuing an accredited course of instruction leading to the acquisition of a high school diploma or its equivalent, determined in accordance with s. 767.511.

(d) A determination as to which parent, if eligible, shall have the right to claim the child as an exemption for federal tax purposes under 26 USC 151 (c).

(e)

1. An order establishing the amount of the father’s obligation to pay or contribute to the reasonable expenses of the mother’s pregnancy and the child’s birth. The amount established may not exceed one-half of the total actual and reasonable pregnancy and birth expenses. The order also shall specify the court’s findings as to whether the father’s income is at or below the poverty line established under 42 USC 9902 (2), and shall specify whether periodic payments are due on the obligation, based on the father’s ability to pay or contribute to those expenses.

2. If the order does not require periodic payments because the father has no present ability to pay or contribute to the expenses, the court may modify the judgment or order at a later date to require periodic payments if the father has the ability to pay at that time.

(f) An order requiring either or both parties to pay or contribute to the costs of the guardian ad litem fees, genetic tests as provided in s. 767.84 (5), and other costs.

(g) An order requiring either party to pay or contribute to the attorney fees of the other party.

30 of 100

§ 767.41 Custody and Physical Placement

(1) General provisions.

(a) Subject to ch. 822, the question of a child’s custody may be determined as an incident of any action affecting the family or in an independent action for custody…

30

31 of 100

§ 769.313 Costs and fees.

(1) The petitioner may not be required to pay a filing fee or other costs.

31

769.313 Costs and fees.

(1) The petitioner may not be required to pay a filing fee or other costs.

(2) If an obligee prevails, a responding tribunal of this state may assess against an obligor filing fees, reasonable attorney fees, other costs, and necessary travel and other reasonable expenses incurred by the obligee and the obligee’s witnesses. The tribunal may not assess fees, costs, or expenses against the obligee or the support enforcement agency of either the initiating or responding state or foreign country, except as provided by other law. Attorney fees may be taxed as costs and may be ordered paid directly to the attorney, who may enforce the order in the attorney’s own name. Payment of support owed to the obligee has priority over fees, costs, and expenses.

(3) The tribunal shall order the payment of costs and reasonable attorney fees if it determines that a hearing was requested primarily for delay. In a proceeding under subch. VI, a hearing is presumed to have been requested primarily for delay if a registered support order is confirmed or enforced without change.

32 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #3

Q: Child is conceived in Michigan. Alleged father lives in WI. Child born in MI and has lived with Mother in MI his whole life (1 year). Mother receives public assistance in MI; MI sends a UIFSA packet to WI Central Registry to establish paternity and establish a support order.

WI CSA files a paternity action.

Assuming GT results show probability of paternity over 99%, what should you include in the judgment?

32

33 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #3

Adjudication of paternity, child support, birth expenses, health insurance, costs & fees, custody & placement, tax exemption;
Adjudication of paternity, child support, birth expenses, health insurance, costs &fees; tax exemption;
Adjudication of paternity, child support, birth expenses, health insurance, costs & fees; or
Adjudication of paternity, child support, birth expenses, health insurance, costs & fees, custody & placement

33

34 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #3

Answer: 3

An adjudication of paternity, order for support, birth costs if requested by MI, health insurance, genetic testing fees, and other court costs to be paid by Father.

34

35 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #3, Cont.

Does Mother in Michigan have to physically be present for the WI paternity hearing(s)?

35

36 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #3, Cont.

Yes or No?

36

37 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #3, Cont.

Does Mother in Michigan have to physically be present for the WI paternity hearing(s)?

No.

37

38 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #3, Cont.

What about custody and placement?

38

39 of 100

UCCJEA

Under Jurisdiction hypothetical #3, WI does not have jurisdiction to make a custody or placement order because the child’s home state is in Michigan.

How do you calculate support without a placement order?

What do you do with pre-printed forms?

What are the consequences for making an order anyway?

Is the custody/placement portion void?

39

40 of 100

UCCJEA

Under Jurisdiction hypothetical #3, WI does not have jurisdiction to make a custody or placement order because the child’s home state is in Michigan.

How do you calculate support without a placement order?

What do you do with pre-printed forms?

What are the consequences for making an order anyway?

Is the custody/placement portion void?

40

41 of 100

UCCJEA

Under Jurisdiction hypothetical #3, WI does not have jurisdiction to make a custody or placement order because the child’s home state is in Michigan.

How do you calculate support without a placement order?

What do you do with pre-printed forms?

What are the consequences for making an order anyway?

Is the custody/placement portion void?

41

42 of 100

UCCJEA

Under Jurisdiction hypothetical #3, WI does not have jurisdiction to make a custody or placement order because the child’s home state is in Michigan.

How do you calculate support without a placement order?

What do you do with pre-printed forms?

What are the consequences for making an order anyway?

Is the custody/placement portion void?

42

43 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #4

Q: Paternity established in IL and an order for child support only was entered. CP wants custody and placement addressed with NCP who now resides in MI. Child and Mother live in WI (WI is now child’s home state). Should the WI CSA be involved in this?

43

44 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #4

Yes or No?

44

45 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #4

A: No. The CP does not have to modify the existing IL order to address custody and placement. The WI CSA should not register the order in WI for the sole purpose of her filing a motion for custody and placement. The CP can file a separate cause of action under the UCCJEA (ch. 822), to which the WI CSA would not be a party.

45

46 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #5

Q: Michigan registered and modified a Wisconsin order per NCP’s request. MI, where CP and children recently moved, states modification is strictly regarding child support, not placement or custody. Where does the NCP file his petition to change placement?

46

47 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #5

Wisconsin or Michigan?

47

48 of 100

Jurisdiction Hypothetical #5

A: Not for the WI CSA agency to decide. Jurisdictional rules over custody and placement are not the same as jurisdictional rules regarding child support. The parent or parent’s attorney needs to check the rules of UCCJEA to determine where to file for a motion to change placement.

48

49 of 100

Terms and General Principles
Establishment
Enforcement
Modification
Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction
Choice of Law
Case Closure

49

50 of 100

Enforcement of Existing Order:

Registration vs. Administrative Enforcement of Orders

50

769.601 Registration of order for enforcement. A support order or an income-withholding order issued in another state or a foreign support order may be registered in this state for enforcement.

769.507 Administrative enforcement of orders.

(1) A party or support enforcement agency seeking to enforce a support order or an income-withholding order, or both, issued in another state or a foreign support order may send the documents required for registering the order to a support enforcement agency of this state.

(2) Upon receipt of the documents, the support enforcement agency, without initially seeking to register the order, shall consider and, if appropriate, use any administrative procedure authorized by the law of this state to enforce a support order or an income-withholding order, or both. If the obligor does not contest administrative enforcement, the order need not be registered. If the obligor contests the validity or administrative enforcement of the order, the support enforcement agency shall register the order as provided in this chapter.

Controlling order can be enforced in any state, even if the parties leave the issuing state.

Registration is key concept for enforcement in WI.

51 of 100

UIFSA Notice to the non-registering party

(Wis. Stat. § 769.605)

Service by mail
Order is enforceable from the date of registration
20 days to contest registration of the order
If not contested timely, order confirmed by operation of law
Include alleged arrears balance

51

769.601 Registration of order for enforcement. A support order or an income-withholding order issued in another state or a foreign support order may be registered in this state for enforcement.

769.605 Notice of registration of order.

(1) Whenever a support order or income-withholding order issued in another state or a foreign support order is registered, the registering tribunal of this state shall notify the nonregistering party. The notice must be accompanied by a copy of the registered order and the documents and relevant information accompanying the order.

(2) The notice must inform the nonregistering party of all of the following:

(a) That a registered support order is enforceable as of the date of registration in the same manner as an order issued by a tribunal of this state.

(b) That a hearing to contest the validity or enforcement of the registered order must be requested within 20 days after the date of mailing or personal service of the notice unless the registered order is under s. 769.707.

(c) That failure to contest the validity or enforcement of the registered order in a timely manner will result in confirmation of the order and enforcement of the order and the alleged arrearages.

(d) The amount of any alleged arrearages.

(2m) If the registering party asserts that 2 or more orders are in effect, the notice must also do all of the following:

(a) Identify the 2 or more orders and the order alleged by the registering party to be the controlling order and the consolidated arrearages, if any.

(b) Notify the nonregistering party of the right to a determination of which is the controlling order.

(c) State that the procedures provided in sub. (2) apply to the determination of which is the controlling order.

(d) State that failure to contest the validity or enforcement of the order alleged to be the controlling order in a timely manner may result in confirmation that the order is the controlling order.

(3) Upon registration of an income-withholding order for enforcement, the support enforcement agency or the registering tribunal shall notify the obligor’s employer under s. 767.75 (2r).

52 of 100

UCCJEA Notice to persons outside state

(Wis. Stat. § § 822.08 and 822.25)

Notice may be given in a manner prescribed by the law of this state for service of process or by the law of the state in which the service is made.

52

822.08 Notice to persons outside state.

(1) Notice required for the exercise of jurisdiction when a person is outside this state may be given in a manner prescribed by the law of this state for service of process or by the law of the state in which the service is made. Notice shall be given in a manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice but may be by publication if other means are not effective.

(2) Proof of service may be made in the manner prescribed by law of this state or by the law of the state in which the service is made.

(3) Notice is not required for the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to a person who submits to the jurisdiction of the court.

822.25 Notice; opportunity to be heard; joinder.

(1) Before a child custody determination is made under this chapter, notice and an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the standards of s. 822.08 shall be given to all persons entitled to notice under the law of this state as in child custody proceedings between residents of this state, any parent whose parental rights have not been previously terminated, and any person having physical custody of the child.

(2) This chapter does not govern the enforceability of a child custody determination made without notice or an opportunity to be heard.

(3) The obligation to join a party and the right to intervene as a party in a child custody proceeding under this chapter are governed by the law of this state as in child custody proceedings between residents of this state.

53 of 100

Contest of Registration

Wis. Stat. § 769.607

(a) That the issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting party.

(b) That the order was obtained by fraud.

(c) That the order has been vacated, suspended or modified by a later order.

(d) That the issuing tribunal has stayed the order pending appeal.

(e) That there is a defense under the law of this state to the remedy sought.

(f) That full or partial payment has been made.

(g) That the statute of limitations under s. 769.604 (2) precludes enforcement of some or all of the arrearages.

(h) That the alleged controlling order is not the controlling order.

53

54 of 100

Determination of Controlling Order

Non-registering party alleges there is another support order in existence, now what?

Wis. Stat. § 769.207

54

769.207 Determination of controlling child support order.

(1c) If a proceeding is brought under this chapter and only one tribunal has issued a child support order, the child support order of that tribunal is controlling and must be recognized.

(1m) If a proceeding is brought under this chapter, and 2 or more child support orders have been issued by tribunals of this state, another state, or a foreign country with regard to the same obligor and child, a tribunal of this state having personal jurisdiction over both the obligor and individual obligee shall apply the following rules and by order shall determine which child support order controls and must be recognized:

(a) If only one of the tribunals would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under this chapter, the child support order of that tribunal controls.

(b) If more than one of the tribunals would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under this chapter, a child support order issued by a tribunal in the current home state of the child controls, or, if a child support order has not been issued in the current home state of the child, the child support order most recently issued controls.

(c) If none of the tribunals would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under this chapter, the tribunal of this state shall issue a child support order, which controls.

(1r) If 2 or more child support orders have been issued for the same obligor and same child, upon the request of a party who is an individual or that is a support enforcement agency, a tribunal of this state having personal jurisdiction over both the obligor and the obligee who is an individual shall determine which child support order controls under sub. (1m). The request may be filed with a registration for enforcement or registration for modification under subch. VI, or may be filed as a separate proceeding.

(1t) A request to determine which is the controlling child support order must be accompanied by a copy of every child support order issued for the obligor and child that is in effect and the applicable record of payments. The requesting party shall give each party whose rights may be affected by a determination of which child support order controls notice of the request for that determination.

(2) The tribunal that issued the order that is controlling under sub. (1c), (1m), or (1r) has continuing jurisdiction to the extent provided in s. 769.205 or 769.206.

(3) A tribunal of this state that determines by order which child support order is controlling under sub. (1m) (a) or (b) or (1r), or that issues a new child support order that is controlling under sub. (1m) (c), shall state in that order all of the following:

(a) The basis upon which the tribunal made its determination.

(b) The amount of prospective support, if any.

(c) The total amount of consolidated arrears and accrued interest, if any, under all of the orders after all payments made are credited as provided by s. 769.209.

(4) Within 30 days after the issuance of an order determining which child support order is controlling, the party that obtained the order shall file a certified copy of the order with each tribunal that had issued or registered an earlier child support order. Failure of the party obtaining the order to file a certified copy of the order as required by this subsection subjects the party to appropriate sanctions by a tribunal in which the issue of failure to file arises, but that failure has no effect on the validity or enforceability of the controlling child support order.

(5) An order that has been determined to be the controlling child support order, or a judgment for consolidated arrears of support and interest, if any, made under this section, must be recognized in proceedings under this chapter.

55 of 100

Enforcement Hypothetical #1

Q: TX order. CP and child live in TX. NCP moves to WI. WI CSA files Notice of Registration. 12 days later NCP files objection.

Which is a valid defense for NCP’s failure to follow TX order?

55

56 of 100

Enforcement Hypothetical #1

The child is not mine;
The order has been vacated, suspended, or modified by a later order;
I am currently unemployed;
The order was not based on my ability to pay.

56

57 of 100

Enforcement Hypothetical #1

Answer: 2. The order has been vacated, suspended, or modified by a later order.

57

769.607 Contest of registration or enforcement.

(1) A party contesting the validity or enforcement of a registered support order or seeking to vacate the registration has the burden of proving one or more of the following defenses:

(a) That the issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting party.

(b) That the order was obtained by fraud.

(c) That the order has been vacated, suspended or modified by a later order.

(d) That the issuing tribunal has stayed the order pending appeal.

(e) That there is a defense under the law of this state to the remedy sought.

(f) That full or partial payment has been made.

(g) That the statute of limitations under s. 769.604 (2) precludes enforcement of some or all of the arrearages.

(h) That the alleged controlling order is not the controlling order.

(2) If a party presents evidence establishing a full or partial defense under sub. (1), a tribunal may stay enforcement of a registered support order, continue the proceeding to permit production of additional relevant evidence, or issue other appropriate orders. An uncontested portion of the registered support order may be enforced by all remedies available under the law of this state.

(3) If the contesting party does not establish a defense under sub. (1) to the validity or enforcement of a registered support order, the registering tribunal shall issue an order confirming the order.

58 of 100

Intrastate Enforcement Hypothetical #2

Q: Dane County IVD order. Both parties leave Dane County and move to Rock County.

Should the court on its own motion change venue to Rock County?

58

801.52 Discretionary change of venue. The court may at any time, upon its own motion, the motion of a party or the stipulation of the parties, change the venue to any county in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties or witnesses, except that venue in a civil action to impose a forfeiture for a violation of chs. 5 to 12, subch. III of ch. 13, or subch. III of ch. 19 or for a violation of any other law arising from or in relation to the official functions of the subject of the investigation or any matter that involves elections, ethics, or lobbying regulation under chs. 5 to 12, subch. III of ch. 13, or subch. III of ch. 19, may be changed only as provided in s. 971.223 (1) and (2) or in the same manner that is authorized for a change in the venue of a criminal trial under s. 971.22. This section does not apply to proceedings under ch. 980.

59 of 100

Intrastate Enforcement Hypothetical #2

Yes or No?

59

801.52 Discretionary change of venue. The court may at any time, upon its own motion, the motion of a party or the stipulation of the parties, change the venue to any county in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties or witnesses, except that venue in a civil action to impose a forfeiture for a violation of chs. 5 to 12, subch. III of ch. 13, or subch. III of ch. 19 or for a violation of any other law arising from or in relation to the official functions of the subject of the investigation or any matter that involves elections, ethics, or lobbying regulation under chs. 5 to 12, subch. III of ch. 13, or subch. III of ch. 19, may be changed only as provided in s. 971.223 (1) and (2) or in the same manner that is authorized for a change in the venue of a criminal trial under s. 971.22. This section does not apply to proceedings under ch. 980.

60 of 100

Instrastate Enforcement Hypothetical #2

A: While the court can, it is preferable if it is not done. Dane County still has jurisdiction.

60

61 of 100

Enforcement Hypothetical #3

Q: When registering another state’s order for enforcement, when is the order considered registered?

61

62 of 100

Enforcement Hypothetical #3

A: Upon filing. The fact that the non-registering party has the opportunity to contest the registration action does not prohibit the enforcement of the order, or preclude the responding state from accepting and processing child support payments.

62

63 of 100

Terms and General Principles
Establishment
Enforcement
Modification
Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction
Choice of Law
Case Closure

63

64 of 100

Modification

Must register another state’s order and have Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction to proceed with a modification.

64

65 of 100

Wis. Stat. § 769.611(1)(a): Play Away Rule

Play Away Rule: CEJ is “up for grabs” if all parties have

left the order issuing state.

The party requesting a modification must “play away”

to the non requesting party’s state for a modification.

66 of 100

Terms and General Principles
Establishment
Enforcement
Modification
Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction
Choice of Law
Case Closure

66

67 of 100

Continuing, Exclusive Jurisdiction (CEJ)

WI will keep CEJ when:

WI retains the controlling order and has jurisdiction over at least one party; or
Each individual party has provided consent for WI to retain CEJ.

If Wisconsin issued an order, one party resides in another state, and the other party resides outside of the United States, Wisconsin maintains CEJ to modify the child support order.

Wis. Stat. s. 769.205

769.205 Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support order.

(1) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order and any of the following applies:

(a) At the time of the filing of a request for modification this state is the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued.

(b) Even if this state is not the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued, the parties consent in a record or in open court that the tribunal of this state may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order.

(2) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state may not exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order if any of the following applies:

(a) All of the parties who are individuals file consent in a record with the tribunal of this state that a tribunal of another state that has jurisdiction over at least one of the parties who is an individual or that is located in the state of residence of the child may modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.

(b) Its order is not the controlling order.

(3) If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act or a law substantially similar to that act that modifies a child support order of a tribunal of this state, tribunals of this state shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.

(4) A tribunal of this state that lacks continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order may serve as an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to modify a support order issued in that state.

(5) A temporary support order issued ex parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing, exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.

68 of 100

CEJ Hypothetical #1

Q: WI order. CP/obligee lives in MN. NCP/obligor lives in WI. NCP wants to modify support order. Which state has CEJ?

Wis. Stat. s. 769.205

769.205 Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support order.

(1) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order and any of the following applies:

(a) At the time of the filing of a request for modification this state is the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued.

(b) Even if this state is not the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued, the parties consent in a record or in open court that the tribunal of this state may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order.

(2) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state may not exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order if any of the following applies:

(a) All of the parties who are individuals file consent in a record with the tribunal of this state that a tribunal of another state that has jurisdiction over at least one of the parties who is an individual or that is located in the state of residence of the child may modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.

(b) Its order is not the controlling order.

(3) If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act or a law substantially similar to that act that modifies a child support order of a tribunal of this state, tribunals of this state shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.

(4) A tribunal of this state that lacks continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order may serve as an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to modify a support order issued in that state.

(5) A temporary support order issued ex parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing, exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.

69 of 100

CEJ Hypothetical #1

A: Wisconsin

Wis. Stat. s. 769.205

769.205 Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support order.

(1) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order and any of the following applies:

(a) At the time of the filing of a request for modification this state is the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued.

(b) Even if this state is not the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued, the parties consent in a record or in open court that the tribunal of this state may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order.

(2) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state may not exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order if any of the following applies:

(a) All of the parties who are individuals file consent in a record with the tribunal of this state that a tribunal of another state that has jurisdiction over at least one of the parties who is an individual or that is located in the state of residence of the child may modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.

(b) Its order is not the controlling order.

(3) If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act or a law substantially similar to that act that modifies a child support order of a tribunal of this state, tribunals of this state shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.

(4) A tribunal of this state that lacks continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order may serve as an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to modify a support order issued in that state.

(5) A temporary support order issued ex parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing, exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.

70 of 100

CEJ Hypothetical #2

Q: WI order. CP lives in MN. NCP lives in IL. CP wants to modify support order. Can CP seek a modification in WI?

Wis. Stat. s. 769.205

769.205 Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support order.

(1) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order and any of the following applies:

(a) At the time of the filing of a request for modification this state is the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued.

(b) Even if this state is not the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued, the parties consent in a record or in open court that the tribunal of this state may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order.

(2) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state may not exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order if any of the following applies:

(a) All of the parties who are individuals file consent in a record with the tribunal of this state that a tribunal of another state that has jurisdiction over at least one of the parties who is an individual or that is located in the state of residence of the child may modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.

(b) Its order is not the controlling order.

(3) If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act or a law substantially similar to that act that modifies a child support order of a tribunal of this state, tribunals of this state shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.

(4) A tribunal of this state that lacks continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order may serve as an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to modify a support order issued in that state.

(5) A temporary support order issued ex parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing, exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.

71 of 100

CECEJ Hypothetical #2

J Hypothetical #2

A: Yes, if both parties consent.

If NCP does not consent, where must CP file the motion?

Illinois

Wis. Stat. s. 769.205

769.205 Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support order.

(1) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order and any of the following applies:

(a) At the time of the filing of a request for modification this state is the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued.

(b) Even if this state is not the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued, the parties consent in a record or in open court that the tribunal of this state may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order.

(2) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state may not exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order if any of the following applies:

(a) All of the parties who are individuals file consent in a record with the tribunal of this state that a tribunal of another state that has jurisdiction over at least one of the parties who is an individual or that is located in the state of residence of the child may modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.

(b) Its order is not the controlling order.

(3) If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act or a law substantially similar to that act that modifies a child support order of a tribunal of this state, tribunals of this state shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.

(4) A tribunal of this state that lacks continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order may serve as an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to modify a support order issued in that state.

(5) A temporary support order issued ex parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing, exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.

72 of 100

CCEJ Hypothetical #2

J Hypothetical #2

A: Yes, if both parties consent.

If NCP does not consent, where must CP file the motion?

Illinois

Wis. Stat. s. 769.205

769.205 Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support order.

(1) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order and any of the following applies:

(a) At the time of the filing of a request for modification this state is the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued.

(b) Even if this state is not the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued, the parties consent in a record or in open court that the tribunal of this state may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order.

(2) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state may not exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order if any of the following applies:

(a) All of the parties who are individuals file consent in a record with the tribunal of this state that a tribunal of another state that has jurisdiction over at least one of the parties who is an individual or that is located in the state of residence of the child may modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.

(b) Its order is not the controlling order.

(3) If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act or a law substantially similar to that act that modifies a child support order of a tribunal of this state, tribunals of this state shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.

(4) A tribunal of this state that lacks continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order may serve as an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to modify a support order issued in that state.

(5) A temporary support order issued ex parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing, exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.

73 of 100

CCEJ Hypothetical #2

J Hypothetical #2

A: Illinois

Illinois

Wis. Stat. s. 769.205

769.205 Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support order.

(1) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order and any of the following applies:

(a) At the time of the filing of a request for modification this state is the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued.

(b) Even if this state is not the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued, the parties consent in a record or in open court that the tribunal of this state may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order.

(2) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state may not exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order if any of the following applies:

(a) All of the parties who are individuals file consent in a record with the tribunal of this state that a tribunal of another state that has jurisdiction over at least one of the parties who is an individual or that is located in the state of residence of the child may modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.

(b) Its order is not the controlling order.

(3) If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act or a law substantially similar to that act that modifies a child support order of a tribunal of this state, tribunals of this state shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.

(4) A tribunal of this state that lacks continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order may serve as an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to modify a support order issued in that state.

(5) A temporary support order issued ex parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing, exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.

74 of 100

CEJ Hypothetical #2

Q: If both parties now reside in WI, is the order issuing state required to submit a UIFSA packet to WI so that WI may register their order for enforcement or modification?

75 of 100

CEJ Hypothetical #2

Yes or No?

76 of 100

CEJ Hypothetical #2

A: No, the WI agency can obtain a certified copy of the order and payment history record from the order issuing state and file the registration and/or modification on its own.

77 of 100

CEJ Hypothetical #3

Q: OR child support order. Parties move to WI and divorce. WI divorce judgment orders support and health insurance obligation to be paid. Does the WI divorce order supersede the OR support order?

78 of 100

CEJ Hypothetical #3

Yes or No?

79 of 100

CEJ Hypothetical #3

A: No. Only if the actions are from the same state will a child support order from a divorce judgment supersede a previous child support order.

If the WI divorce judgment addresses support but does not acknowledge/modify the OR support order, there are now two support orders and a DCO will need to occur.

80 of 100

Maintenance

Section 211: Issuing state retains CEJ throughout the existence of the support obligation.

80

769.211 Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify spousal support order.

(1) A tribunal of this state issuing a spousal support order consistent with the law of this state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the spousal support order throughout the existence of the support obligation.

(2) A tribunal of this state may not modify a spousal support order issued by a tribunal of another state or a foreign country having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over that order under the law of that state or foreign country.

(3) A tribunal of this state that has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a spousal support order may serve as any of the following:

(a) An initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to enforce the spousal support order issued in this state.

(b) A responding tribunal to enforce or modify its own spousal support order.

81 of 100

Terms and General Principles
Establishment
Enforcement
Modification
Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction
Choice of Law
Case Closure

81

769.604 Choice of law.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in sub. (4), the law of the issuing state or foreign country governs all of the following:

(a) The nature, extent, amount, and duration of current payments under a registered support order.

(b) The computation and payment of arrearages and accrual of interest on the arrearages under the support order.

(c) The existence and satisfaction of other obligations under the support order.

(2) In a proceeding for arrearages under a registered support order, the statute of limitations under the laws of this state or of the issuing state or foreign country, whichever is longer, applies.

(3) A responding tribunal of this state shall apply the procedures and remedies of this state to enforce current support and collect arrearages and interest due on a support order of another state or a foreign country that is registered in this state.

(4) After a tribunal of this state or another state determines which is the controlling order and issues an order consolidating arrearages, if any, a tribunal of this state shall prospectively apply the law of the state or foreign country issuing the controlling order, including its law on interest on arrearages, on current and future support, and on consolidated arrearages.

82 of 100

Law of issuing state applies for most UIFSA proceedings

Exceptions:

Direct withholding (§ 769.502(4))
Registration SOL (§ 769.604)
Modification (Section 611(d))

82

769.502 Employer’s compliance with income-withholding order of another state.

(4) The employer shall comply with the law of the state of the obligor’s principal place of employment for withholding from income with respect to all of the following:

(a) The employer’s fee for Closure an income-withholding order.

(b) The maximum amount permitted to be withheld from the obligor’s income.

(c) The time periods within which the employer must implement the income-withholding order and forward the child support payment.

769.604 Choice of law.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in sub. (4), the law of the issuing state or foreign country governs all of the following:

(a) The nature, extent, amount, and duration of current payments under a registered support order.

(b) The computation and payment of arrearages and accrual of interest on the arrearages under the support order.

(c) The existence and satisfaction of other obligations under the support order.

(2) In a proceeding for arrearages under a registered support order, the statute of limitations under the laws of this state or of the issuing state or foreign country, whichever is longer, applies.

769.611 Modification of child support order of another state.

(4) Upon issuance of an order modifying a child support order issued in another state, a tribunal of this state becomes the tribunal of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.

83 of 100

Choice of Law Hypothetical #1

Q: CA support order. WI registered order for enforcement. WI SOL is 20 years. There is no SOL in CA. Which SOL applies to the registered order in WI?

83

84 of 100

Choice of Law Hypothetical #1

California or Wisconsin?

84

85 of 100

Choice of Law Hypothetical #1

A: CA. Whichever statute of limitation is longer applies.

NOTE : Registration cannot revive an order for which the SOL has passed.

85

86 of 100

Choice of Law Hypothetical #2

Q: WI child support order. NY registers the order for modification. Both parents and child reside in NY. Age of majority in WI is 18*. Age of majority in NY is 21.

Under which law does the child emancipate?

86

87 of 100

Choice of Law Hypothetical #2

Wisconsin or New York?

87

88 of 100

Choice of Law Hypothetical #2

A: WI. The law of the issuing state controls the duration of the support order, regardless of which state assumes CEJ.

88

89 of 100

Terms and General Principles
Establishment
Enforcement
Modification
Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction
Choice of Law
Case Closure

89

769.604 Choice of law.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in sub. (4), the law of the issuing state or foreign country governs all of the following:

(a) The nature, extent, amount, and duration of current payments under a registered support order.

(b) The computation and payment of arrearages and accrual of interest on the arrearages under the support order.

(c) The existence and satisfaction of other obligations under the support order.

(2) In a proceeding for arrearages under a registered support order, the statute of limitations under the laws of this state or of the issuing state or foreign country, whichever is longer, applies.

(3) A responding tribunal of this state shall apply the procedures and remedies of this state to enforce current support and collect arrearages and interest due on a support order of another state or a foreign country that is registered in this state.

(4) After a tribunal of this state or another state determines which is the controlling order and issues an order consolidating arrearages, if any, a tribunal of this state shall prospectively apply the law of the state or foreign country issuing the controlling order, including its law on interest on arrearages, on current and future support, and on consolidated arrearages.

90 of 100

UIFSA Case Closure

45 CFR § 303.11 - Case closure criteria.

90

91 of 100

Case Closure Hypothetical #1

Q: WI initiates to MN for enforcement of a WI order. MN advises the case is paid in full and it will be closing its IG case. Can MN do this?

91

92 of 100

Case Closure Hypothetical #1

A: No. WI is the order-issuing state and custodian of records. It determines when the case is paid in full.

92

93 of 100

Case Closure Hypothetical #2

Q: Responding jurisdiction discovers NCP’s sole source of income is SSI. They close their responding case and notify initiating jurisdiction. Is this allowed?

93

94 of 100

Case Closure Hypothetical #2

Yes or No?

94

95 of 100

Case Closure Hypothetical #2

A: No. Responding state may not unilaterally close an IG case under 303.11(1) to (11) without the permission of the initiating agency.

95

96 of 100

Case Closure Hypothetical #3

Q: WI has registered CA order for enforcement. You can no longer locate NCP. WI requests locate information from CA. Can WI close its interstate case with CA for failure to provide information essential for the next step?

96

97 of 100

Case Closure Hypothetical #3

A: No. Not unless WI has found an out-of-state address for NCP. Then permission for WI to close can be requested. CA’s inability to provide a current employer or residential address for the NCP does not constitute a failure to take an action essential for the next step in providing services.

97

98 of 100

Case Closure Hypothetical #4

Q: WI order. Both parties now reside in TX. TX requests a certified copy of WI order and pay record as they plan to register and modify the order. For how long does WI remain the custodian of the records?

98

99 of 100

Case Closure Hypothetical #4

A: Until such a time that WI is provided a copy of the modified order by TX, WI remains the custodian of records.

99

100 of 100

Melissa St. Croix

melissa.stcroix@wisconsin.gov

(608) 422-6253

Attorney Jill E. Mueller

jill.mueller@wisconsin.gov

(608) 422-7046

100