Issue: How does a Father who now lives in Florida modify a child support order entered in another state?

Brief Answer: The Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA), 28 U.S.C.S. §1738B, provides that each state shall enforce a child support order of another state according to its terms and shall not have jurisdiction to modify that foreign order except in accordance with subsection (e) of FFCCSOA. Subsection (e) provides that the original foreign order may be modified by a sister state if the state that issued the order seeking to be enforced is no longer the child's state of residence or the residence of any individual contestant, or each individual contestant has filed written consent with the original state (i.e., the payee's state) to allow modification by the payor's state.

ANALYSIS

In 1994, Congress enacted the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act, also known as “FFCCSOA” found in 28 U.S.C. §1738B. Congress enacted this law because of concerns about the growing number of child support cases involving disputes between parents who live in different states and the ease with which noncustodial parents could reduce the amount of the obligation or evade enforcement by moving across state lines. FFCCSOA requires courts of all United States territories, states and tribes to accord full faith and credit to a child support order issued by another state or tribe that properly exercised jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

Before a foreign court order is modifiable, the foreign support order needs to be registered pursuant to Florida Statute §88.6021 (2013). A child support order of another state may be registered in Florida by sending two copies of the order, one of them certified, to the appropriate Florida court with a letter of transmittal requesting registration and enforcement. The orders and letter must be accompanied by a sworn or certified statement showing the amount of any arrearage and information to identify the obligor and the means by which the order may be enforced against him or her, the obligee, and the agency or person to whom support payments are to be remitted. An order is deemed registered when it is filed in the Florida court and is enforceable in the same manner as a Florida order. The non-registering party then has 20 days to request a hearing to contest the registration of an order, the remedies sought, or the amount of any alleged arrearage, or to assert any defense to alleged noncompliance with the order.

The authority to modify the child support order of another state under FFCCSOA is found by federal law at section 28 U.S.C. §1738B(e). In simplistic terms, under this section, a state may modify the order of another state if (1) it has jurisdiction and the issuing state no longer has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction or (2) if each individual contestant files written consent with the state of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. FFCCSOA prohibits a state from modifying an existing order issued by another state, unless these criteria are met.

28 U.S.C. §1738B(e) Authority to modify orders, reads: A court of a State may modify a child support order issued by a court of another State if --

(1) the court has jurisdiction to make such a child support order pursuant to subsection (i); and

(2)(A) the court of the other State no longer has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the child support order because that State no longer is the child's State or the residence of any individual contestant; or

(B) each individual contestant has filed written consent with the State of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction for a court of another State to modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the order.

Similar language can be found in Florida Statutes §88.6111 (2013) titled “Modification of child support order of another state”. If all of the individual parties reside in Florida and the child does not reside in the issuing state, Florida may modify the order pursuant to Fla. Stat. §88.6111(1), Fla. Stat. (2013); see also §88.6131, Fla. Stat. (2013). However, when not all of the parties reside in Florida, a Florida court may only modify the order under one of the following circumstances:

1. After notice and hearing the tribunal finds that

     a. the child, individual obligee, and obligor do not reside in the issuing state;

     b. the petitioner seeks modification and is not a Florida resident; and

     c. the Florida tribunal has personal jurisdiction over the respondent.

2. The tribunal finds that it has personal jurisdiction over an individual party or the child and that all of the individual parties have filed a consent in the issuing tribunal to the Florida tribunal's modifying the support order and assuming continuing exclusive jurisdiction over it.

Besides the FFCCSOA, there is also the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. § 666), which required that states adopt UIFSA by January 1, 1998, or face loss of federal funding for child support enforcement. UIFSA establishes rules requiring every state to defer to child support orders entered by the state courts of the child's home state. Every U.S. state has adopted either the 1996 or a later version of UIFSA. The FFCCSOA is virtually identical to UIFSA as adopted in Florida Statues Chapter 88, both in terms of structure and intent. Florida Statutes state that the place where the order was originally entered holds continuing exclusive jurisdiction, and only the law of that state can be applied to requests to modify the order of child support, unless the original tribunal loses exclusive jurisdiction under the Act. But, the issuing state loses such jurisdiction when neither the child nor any of the parties continue to reside in the state or when all of the parties file written consents with the issuing court to allow another state to assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the order, despite the parties' state of residence.

There are multiple cases in Florida that have explained when a foreign support order can not be modified in this state. In Kramer v. Kramer, 698 So. 2d 894 (Fla 4th DCA 1997), the court that held that as long as the custodial parent and child remain in the state that issued the support order, that state has continuing jurisdiction and the state of the noncustodial parent’s residence has no jurisdiction to enter any modifications of the underlying support order. Id. In -Kramer, the former wife filed a petition in New York seeking child support arrears and contribution toward the minor child's college expenses. Id. at 895. The former husband filed in Florida for termination of his child support obligation, alleging the child had reached the age of majority in Florida. Id. The former wife requested the Florida court to deny jurisdiction and the Florida court ruled for the former husband and found Florida to have jurisdiction. Id. On appeal, the District Court held that federal legislation had preempted state law with respect to modification of child support orders rendered in another state, pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act, 28 U.S.C.S. §1738B. Id. at 896. Under the act, both parties had to consent to Florida jurisdiction before it could enter an order modifying child support. Id. Since the former wife continued to reside in New York, that court maintained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. Id. The former husband could only obtain the termination in the New York court. Id.

The court held similarly in the case of Department of Revenue v. Skladanuk, 683 So. 2d 624 (Fla 2nd DCA 1996) where the appellate court reversed an order modifying downward the father's child support obligation from amounts previously set in an order of a New York court because the trial court was without jurisdiction under the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act to modify the New York order. Id. at 626. The New York court had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of this order because the child and her mother continued to reside there. Id. The father was required to seek modification of his child support obligation in New York unless he can show that he has satisfied one of the exceptions of subsection (e). Id. [See Department of Revenue by Hylton v. Hylton, 703 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), Respondent father could not seek a downward modification of Georgia court's child support orders in a Florida court because the Florida court lacked jurisdiction under the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act.]

There is one case which has found that Florida had jurisdiction to modify a support order from another jurisdiction, although it is more difficult to establish. In the case of Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So. 2d 209 (Fla 5th DCA 2008), a father, who lived in Oregon, sought to register a Pennsylvania child support order in Florida pursuant to §88.6091, Fla. Stat. (2007), 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7609 (2007) of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), because the mother and children were living in Florida. Id. However, the mother and the children moved to Maryland after the action was filed. Id. The trial court concluded that since Pennsylvania was still issuing enforcement orders, Florida had no jurisdiction to proceed. Id. The appellate court found, that because none of the parties or the children had resided in Pennsylvania since 2001, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. §1738B(e)(2)(A),(B), and §88.2051, Fla. Stat. (2007), the Pennsylvania court lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. Id. at 212. Because the mother and the children were living in Florida when the action was filed, pursuant to §88.6111(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007), the Florida court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction to modify the Pennsylvania child support order. Id. Accordingly, it erred in dismissing the matter. Id. The appellate court outlined how to modify a child support order when not all of the parties reside in Florida. A Florida court may only modify the order under one of the following circumstances: (1.) After notice and hearing the tribunal finds that (a.) the child, the individual obligee, and the obligor do not reside in the issuing state; (b.) the petitioner seeks modification and is not a Florida resident; and (c.) the Florida tribunal has personal jurisdiction over the respondent. (2.)

The tribunal finds that it has personal jurisdiction over an individual party or the child and that all of the individual parties have filed a consent in the issuing tribunal to the Florida tribunal's modifying the support order and assuming continuing exclusive jurisdiction over it. Id.

CONCLUSION

     The options for the Father, who now lives in Florida, to modify a child support order (after it has been registered) from a foreign jurisdiction, are as follows:

     1 – If everyone, (mother, father, child) now lives in Florida and the foreign jurisdiction has lost continuing exclusive jurisdiction, Florida can modify the order

     2 – If the Mother doesn’t live in Florida, but the child lives in Florida, the Mother has to consent in writing to foreign court allowing Florida to modify and assume continuing exclusive jurisdiction over the order.