Note
Article heading reenacted by L 2015, c 77, pt of §1.
Parts I, II, and III headings in this Article deleted by L 2015, c 77, pt of §1.
§576B-205 Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support order. (a) 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:
(1) 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; or
(2) 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.
(b) 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:
(1) 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; or
(2) Its order is not the controlling order.
(c) 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.
(d) 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.
(e) A temporary support order issued ex parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing, exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal. [L 1997, c 295, pt of §1; am L 2015, c 77, pt of §1]
Case Notes
Where New Mexico had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over its spousal support order, New Mexico could act as a responding tribunal to enforce or modify its order; husband and wife were subject to the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of New Mexico notwithstanding the fact that neither resided in New Mexico; because Hawaii lacked continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over New Mexico's spousal support order, Hawaii could not serve as a responding tribunal to modify New Mexico's spousal support order, but could enforce it. 111 H. 51 (App.), 137 P.3d 365 (2006).
Section: Previous 576b-103 576b-104 576b-105 576b-201 576b-202 576b-203 576b-204 576b-205 576b-206 576b-207 576b-208 576b-209 576b-210 576b-211 576b-301 NextLast modified: October 27, 2016