UIFSA
CS 154P
Determination of the Controlling Order (DCO) Overview
10/96 Revised 09/02/25 Training
Completed 09/16/25 Last Reviewed 09/30/25
45 CFR
303.7(a)(6); Utah
Code 26B-9-206, 81-8-102,
103,
207,
305,
307, 81-11;
18 U.S. Code 1151,
28 U.S. Code 1738B,
Utah
Rules of Civil Procedures Rule 60(b)
Introduction
Before the
Full Faith and Credit of Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA), October, 1994 and
the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) of July, 1996 took effect, it
was possible for a single child support case for the same family to have more
than one valid order issued by different entities/states. This situation was
created under the common scenario listed below.
1.
An order was
issued when the custodial parent (CP), noncustodial parent (NCP), and child
were all residing in the same state.
2.
The NCP then
moves to another state. (This did not release the NCP from his/her obligation;
however, quite often the NCP just quit paying.)
3.
The CP
wanted enforcement of the obligation and requested assistance from the state
s/he was currently residing in.
4.
The CP’s
state would file an interstate action with the NCP’s state under the now
obsolete Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). The NCP’s state
would establish a new support order. This second order would then be used for
enforcement in the NCP’s state.
1.
One of the
reasons a new order was issued was because it was believed that the NCP’s state
was more likely and better able to enforce its own order rather than an order
from another state. Another reason a new order was issued was because the laws
allowed states to issue another order.
2.
Even though
a new order had just been issued, the initial order was still valid and
remained in effect. The obligation to pay support on that initial order did not
stop just because:
i.
The NCP left
the state; or,
ii.
A new order
was established.
5.
With the
establishment of the second order, the case now had two valid orders in effect
in two different states at the same time. Because each state tribunal issued
the order using its own state laws, the two orders were often for different
amounts.
6.
If the NCP moved
to a third state, another new order could be established. This order would also
be valid under the laws of that state.
7.
This caused
confusion about the amount of:
a.
Current
support to charge;
b.
Support that
had been paid; and,
c.
Arrears that
were actually owed.
UIFSA call
for a “one order system” to resolve the problems associated with multiple
orders under URESA. Under UIFSA, once a support order is entered, that order controls the child support obligation
regardless of whether the parents or child later move to another state. This
“one order” is called the controlling order.
Because
there may be more than one order for the same parents and child(ren), both
FFCACSO and UIFSA include a process to determine which of the multiple order(s)
to recognize prospectively for current child support. This process is called
the determination of controlling order (
Statutory
Authority
The Office
of Recovery Services/Child Support Services (ORS/
Utah Code 81-8-305:
“(2) A responding tribunal of this state, to
the extent not prohibited by other law, may do one or more of the following:
(a) establish or enforce a support order,
modify a child support order, determine the controlling child support order, or
determine parentage of a child. . . .”
Utah Code 81-8-307:
“(3) A child support services agency of this
state that requests registration of a child support order in this state for
enforcement or for modification shall make reasonable efforts:
(a) to ensure that the order to be registered
is the controlling order; or
(b) if two or more child support orders exist
and the identity of the controlling order has not been determined, to ensure
that a request for such a determination is made in a tribunal having
jurisdiction to do so.”
If a request
is received from a state IV-D agency for a copy of an order and/or payment
history for a determination of a controlling order (
“Within 30 working days of receiving a request, provide any order
and payment record information requested by a State IV–D agency for a controlling order
determination and reconciliation of arrearages, or notify the State IV–D agency when the information
will be provided;”
Once a
Terms/Definitions
1.
Child Support Order – As defined by Utah Code
81-8-102:
“(4) ‘Child support order’ means
a support order for a child, including a child who has attained the age of
majority under the law of the issuing state or foreign country.”
2.
Continuing, Exclusive
Jurisdiction (CEJ) – For purposes
of determining “controlling order”: An
issuing tribunal has CEJ over its own child support order if the order is the
controlling order, and:
a.
At the time
of the filing of a request for modification, the state is the residence of the
NCP, the individual CP, or the child for whose benefit the support order is
issued; or,
b.
Even if the
state is not the residence of the NCP, the CP, or the child for whose benefit
the support order is issued, the parties consent in a record or in open court
that a tribunal of another state may continue to exercise jurisdiction to
modify the order. For more information, refer to CS 158 Continuing Exclusive
Jurisdiction and Utah Code 81-8-205.
3.
Controlling Order
State
– The state in which the only order was issued, or, where multiple orders
exist, the state in which the order determined by a tribunal to control
prospective current support pursuant to the UIFSA was issued. For more
information, refer Utah Code 81-8-207.
4.
Controlling Order Status – For purposes of ORS analysis to
determine a “controlling order”: A
child support order containing a month-to-month obligation for a child’s
on-going support which can be prospectively enforced. For more information,
refer to CS 158P.
5.
Custodial Parent (CP) – For purposes of ORS analysis
to determine a “controlling order”: The
parent or guardian with whom the child resides.
6.
Indian Country – As defined by 18 U.S. Code
1151:
“Except as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this
title, the term ‘Indian country’, as used in this chapter, means
(a)
all land within the limits of any Indian reservation
under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the
reservation,
(b)
all dependent Indian communities within the borders of
the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory
thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and
(c)
all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have
not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.”
7.
Multiple Orders – For purposes ORS analysis to
determine a “controlling order”: A
case with two or more valid child support orders that contain a month-to-month
current support obligation and are enforceable throughout the child’s minority.
8.
No Order – For purposes of determining
“controlling order”: An order that does not address current child support. For
example:
a.
Temporary
orders issued ex parte;
b.
Arrears only
orders;
c.
Orders for
accrued support only (no current support obligation);
d.
Income
withholding orders;
e.
e. Custody and/or parent-time only
orders issued under Utah Code Title 81, Chapter 11, the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA); and,
NOTE: An order pursuant to Utah
Code Title 81, Chapter 811 may be issued in another state and it does not
affect the original child support order. If you are unsure if the order is a
UCCJEA order, contact the Attorney General’s Office (AGO).
f.
An original
order modified under UIFSA.
9.
Noncustodial Parent (NCP) – For purposes of determining “controlling order”: The parent obligated to pay child
support for a child who does not reside with the NCP.
10.
Non IV-D Request for
11.
Obligations – All judicial and
administrative obligations that are stored in ORSIS on the obligation screens.
12.
Orders – An order that is not stored in
ORSIS on the obligation screens, but was used in a controlling order
determination process.
13.
Personal Jurisdiction – For purposes of determining
“controlling order”: a
court/tribunal’s authority over an individual residing within the state.
14.
Single Order – For purposes of determining
“controlling order”: A case with one
child support order, which controls the child support obligation regardless of
whether the child or parent later moves to another state.
15.
Tribunal – As defined by Utah Code 81-8-102:
“(32) ‘Tribunal’ means a court, administrative
agency, or quasi-judicial entity authorized to establish, enforce, or modify
support orders or to determine parentage of a child.”
16.
UIFSA Action – For purposes of determining
“controlling order”: Any remedy or
proceeding contained within the UIFSA law that is taken on a case.
Full Faith and
Credit of Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA) Uniform Interstate Family Support
Act (UIFSA)
FFCCSOA 28
U.S. Code § 1738B(a) requires states to give
full faith and credit to all valid orders, including judicial, administrative,
and URESA orders.
28 U.S. Code
§ 1738B - Full faith and credit
for child support orders:
“(a) General
Rule.— The appropriate authorities of each State—
(1) shall enforce according to its terms a child
support order made consistently with this section by a court of another State;
and
(2) shall not seek or make a modification of such
an order except in accordance with subsections (e), (f), and (i).”
Per FFCCSOA (Sec 1738B(f)) and UIFSA (Utah Code 81-8-207), once an
order is established, it is the only order issued for that case. Utah Code 81-8-207:
“(1) If
a proceeding is brought under this chapter and only one tribunal has issued a
child support order, the order of that tribunal controls and shall be so
recognized.
(2) If a
proceeding is brought under this chapter, and two 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 same 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 order controls and shall be recognized:
(a) If
only one of the tribunals would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under
this chapter, the order of that tribunal controls.
(b) If
more than one of the tribunals would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction
under this chapter, an order issued by a tribunal in the current home state of
the child controls, or if an order has not been issued in the current home
state of the child, the 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.
(3) (a)
If two or more child support orders have been issued for the same obligor and
same child, upon request of a party who is an individual or that is a child
support services agency, a tribunal of this state having personal jurisdiction
over both the obligor and the obligee who is an
individual shall determine which order controls under Subsection (2).
(b) The
request under Subsection (3)(a) may be filed with a registration for
enforcement or registration for modification pursuant to Part 6, Registration,
Enforcement, and Modification of Support Order, or may be filed as a separate
proceeding.
(4) (a)
A request to determine which is the controlling order shall be accompanied by a
copy of every child support order in effect and the applicable record of
payments.
(b) The
requesting party shall give notice of the request to each party whose rights
may be affected by the determination.
(5) The
tribunal that issued the controlling order under Subsection (1), (2), or (3)
has continuing jurisdiction to the extent provided in Section 81-8-205 or
81-8-206.
(6) A
tribunal of this state that determines by order which is the controlling order
under Subsection (2)(a), (b), or (3) that issues a new controlling order under
Subsection (2)(c), shall state in that order:
(a) the
basis upon which the tribunal made the tribunal's determination;
(b) the
amount of prospective support, if any; and
(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 Section
81-8-209.
(7)(a)
Within 30 days after issuance of an order determining which is the controlling
order, the party obtaining the order shall file a certified copy of the order
in each tribunal that issued or registered an earlier order of child support.
(b) A
party or child support services agency obtaining the order that fails to file a
certified copy is subject to appropriate sanctions by a tribunal in which the
issue of failure to file arises.
(c) The
failure to file does not affect the validity or enforceability of the
controlling order.
(8) An
order that has been determined to be the controlling order, or a judgment for
consolidated arrears of support and interest, if any, made in accordance with
this section shall be recognized in proceedings under this chapter.”
NOTE: Utah Code 26B-9-206(3) also supports taking an order when there are multiple
non-CEJ orders:
“(b) the office may issue an order of current
support in accordance with the child support guidelines if the conditions of
Subsection 81-8-207 are met.”
If a case
has multiple orders, a designated “tribunal” provides an opportunity for an
adjudicative proceeding to determine which of the multiple orders is the
controlling order (see Utah Code 81-8-207). During the
Who Can Make
a Determination of Controlling Order
Under UIFSA,
only a designated tribunal may make a determination of controlling order. Because
UIFSA allows each state to define “tribunal”, the designated tribunal is
different in all states. For example, in some states the definition of tribunal
has been limited to a specific court, which means only the designated court may make a binding
In the state
of Utah in accordance with Utah Code 81-8-103, both the district court and the
Department of Health and Human Services, of which the ORS/
“(1) A court with
jurisdiction under Title 78A, Judiciary and Judicial Administration, and the
Utah Department of Health and Human Services are the tribunals of this state.
(2) The Utah Department of Health and Human Services is the
state child support services agency.”
Within ORS/
When to Make
a Determination of Controlling Order
A
If the case does
not have an order, establish an order. If there is only one order, enforce that
order until/unless you receive notice of multiple orders. If there are multiple
orders in the case, obtain copies of all of the orders. If both parties live in
Utah (in-state case), determine the controlling order and reconcile the
arrears. If one of the parties lives in another state and Utah is the
responding state, make a DCO and reconcile the arrears. If one of the parties
lives in another state and Utah is the initiating agency, generate an
intergovernmental referral/request to have the responding state make a DCO
determination.
Below are
examples of when a case should be reviewed for a possible
1.
In-state Cases – If an in-state case (both NCP
and CP reside in Utah) has multiple
orders.
2.
Two-state referrals – In the absence of personal jurisdiction over one of the parties, the
approved tribunal in the initiating agency may not make a
For the
responding state:
a.
One of the
parties (usually the NCP) currently resides in that state; and,
b.
The other
party (usually the CP) has initiated the UIFSA action and thereby consents to
the jurisdiction of that state.
NOTE: The responding state is responsible for the DCO.
3. Multiple orders –
An in-state case has multiple orders or an interstate case has multiple orders
and you are pursuing a remedy or proceeding contained within UIFSA.
4. Stand-Alone
a.
Providing
b.
Notifying all
parties whose rights may be affected by the determination.
What Orders
to Include in a Determination of Controlling Order
When
appropriate to complete a
If one of the multiple orders is a judicial order, but child
support is not ordered or there is no child support language in the order,
refer the case to the AGO to
determine if the tribunal issuing the order still has jurisdiction over child
support matters. For example:
1.
There may be
a state law which requires the state IV-D office to set child support on
judicial orders;
2.
There may be
other documents attached to the judicial order or a part of the court file
which address child support; or
3.
There may be
a judicial order that originally ordered the noncustodial parent to pay child
support and was later modified to “no child support ordered”.
Impact of
Making a Determination of Controlling Order
A
1.
The amount
of the controlling order governs the support amount to be enforced
prospectively;
2.
The arrears under
the old orders can no longer continue to accrue. The arrears are locked in as
of the date of the
3.
The
If there is only one order in the case,
regardless of where the parties reside, it
is the controlling order under Utah Code 81-8-207 and no
“(1) If a proceeding is brought under this chapter and only one
tribunal has issued a child support order, the order of that tribunal controls
and must be so recognized.”
The order must be recognized as the
controlling order for purposes of enforcement, review and modification, etc.,
regardless of whether the parents or child later move to another State. Always
enforce the single order as the controlling order without any type of adjudicative proceeding involving a tribunal
until/unless you receive notice of multiple orders.
If a DCO is needed per the criteria listed above, review the
orders and determine which of the multiple orders should be recognized for
purposes of prospective enforcement or modification. All orders reviewed must
be given full faith and credit.
If at least one of the orders was
issued by a state after the effective date of UIFSA (July, 1996 in Utah) and
that order does not have language which incorporates the prior order(s), it is
possible that the second order may not be valid. It will be necessary to work
with the assigned Assistant Attorney General (AAG) and/or the other state to
get the invalid second order set aside. Consider the following examples and
analysis when discussing options with the AAG:
·
Scenario #1:
w Facts:
§ Utah (UT) properly enters an administrative
child support order against Dad in 2002 for Child A.
§ All parties and child move to Idaho (ID) and ID
enters a judicial child support order against Dad in 2003 for Child A. The
order does not acknowledge or mention
in any way the UT administrative order.
§ Mom, Dad, and Child then move back to UT. Mom
wants UT to enforce the ID order against Dad in UT.
w Analysis: The ID court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
to enter their support order under their equivalent of 
204 of
the UIFSA model act. Their court should have recognized the UT administrative
order. Now that all parties have moved to UT (and ID refuses to take any action
to vacate their support order), UT:
§ Should file an action with the courts to
specifically rule that the order is void, since the issuing ID tribunal lacked
subject matter jurisdiction; and,
§ Proceed with enforcement of the UT
administrative order, which is the CEJ order for modification and prospective
enforcement purposes.
·
Scenario #2:
w Facts:
Same as Scenario #1, except ID orders Dad to
pay support for Child A and Child B (Child B not mentioned [not born] at time
of Utah administrative order).
w Analysis: This is more difficult since ID is setting the
only support order for Child B. If the ID order is a per child order, the ID
order is invalid as to Child A for the reasons mentioned in Scenario #1 (there
was already a valid UT order for that child), but valid as to Child B. Now that
all parties reside in UT, UT should register the ID order for enforcement with
a modification. Then the UT courts can:
§ Consolidate the arrears amount; and,
§ Assume CEJ over the support for both Child A
and B.
NOTE: The problem with this solution is that
the UT order governs duration of support for Child A and the ID order governs
the duration of support for Child B.
·
Scenario #3:
w Facts:
§ California (CA) enters a parentage and child
support order against Dad in 2001 for Child C.
§ Mom and Child move to UT, Dad remains in CA.
§ In 2003 Mom obtains, with Dad’s on the court
record oral consent, a private UT parentage and child support order against Dad
for the same Child C. The Utah order does not acknowledge or mention the CA
order in any way.
w Analysis: Based on the facts presented, it appears that
the parties have obtained a new, independent support order and have not
modified the CA order. The parties’ stipulation is not the type of consent to continue CEJ after parties have moved
from the state that is contemplated in §205 of the UIFSA model act. Nor is it
the §205 of the UIFSA model act consent filed with the courts of CA to grant UT
CEJ to modify the CA order. On the basis of the same analysis set forth in
Scenario #1, the UT order is invalid and should be set aside per Rule 60(b) of
the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
·
Scenario #4:
w Facts: Same as Scenario #3 except Dad moves to UT where
he is served with the Complaint in Mom’s private parentage and support action.
He does not respond/answer, so a default UT parentage and support order is
entered against him. The order does not acknowledge or mention the CA order.
w Analysis:
The UT support order is invalid for the same
reasons set forth in Scenario #1 and the support order should be set aside
under Rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
If none of the states that issued
prior orders can claim CEJ, a new order may legally be issued under Utah Code
81-8-207(2)(c). When/if this occurs, the new order becomes the controlling
order. Anytime you are unsure whether or
not to use an order in the
Multiple
Order Determination
Complete the following questions
when reviewing multiple orders to determine the controlling order, identifying
the presumed controlling order, or before making an interstate referral to
another state (responding state).
1.
Are there
multiple orders?
a.
No – If
there is only one order, it is the controlling order.
b.
Yes –
Continue to #2.
2.
Is there an
order in the child’s home state?
a.
Yes – It is
the controlling order.
b.
No –
Continue to #3.
3.
Is there an
order in the CP’s home state?
a.
Yes – Is there
an order issued in the NCP’s home state?
i.
Yes – The
most recently issued order is the controlling order.
ii.
No – The
order issued in the CP’s home state is the controlling order.
b.
No –
Continue to #4.
4.
Is there an
order issued in the NCP’s home state?
a.
Yes – It is
the controlling order.
b. No – There is not a controlling order, establish a new controlling order.