UIFSA
CS 158P Continuing, Exclusive
Jurisdiction
10/96 Revised 09/02/25 Training Completed 09/16/25 Last Reviewed 09/30/25
Statutory
Authority
Pursuant to Utah Code 81-8-205:
(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:
(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; or
(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 the tribunal's 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:
(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; or
(b) the tribunal's order is not the controlling order.
(3) If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support
order in accordance with the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act or a law
substantially similar to the act, that modifies a
child support order of a tribunal of this state, a tribunal 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.
NOTE: In this situation,
the state issuing the order may lose CEJ.
Pursuant to Utah Code 81-8-211:
(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 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:
(a) an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state
to enforce the spousal support order issued in this state; or
(b) a responding tribunal to enforce or modify the tribunal's own
spousal support order.
Once a
court/tribunal has acquired continuing, exclusive jurisdiction (CEJ) it retains
the authority over a specific matter. A state
has CEJ if it is the state that issued the controlling order and either the child, the individual custodial
parent (CP), or the noncustodial parent (NCP) resides in that state. Since there is only one controlling order
per case, only one state can have CEJ; this makes the jurisdiction exclusive. CEJ is continuing, because once a state has
CEJ, that state maintains CEJ as long as one of the people in the order/case
still resides within that state.
Therefore, the authority to modify that order is restricted, and only
the state with CEJ can modify the controlling order.
When
Continuing, Exclusive Jurisdiction is Lost
A state with
CEJ maintains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over that order and has the
sole legal authority to modify the order unless one of the following conditions
exist:
1.
The NCP, CP,
and the child(ren) move out of the state where the order was issued. Although, the controlling order still governs
the obligation for prospective enforcement.
EXAMPLE:
·
Case Facts:
w John and Wendy are divorced in California in May 1994.
w In December 1994, John moves to Colorado and Wendy requests that
California collect her child support. An
intergovernmental petition is sent to Colorado and Colorado establishes a
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) order in May 1995.
w In October 1995, Wendy and her child move to Utah.
w There are two support orders, one in California and one in
Colorado. Colorado attempts to enforce
the order, but because there are multiple orders they must first make a
controlling order determination.
·
Case
Analysis:
w California order: All of
the parties have left the state of California; therefore, California no longer has CEJ.
w Colorado order: Colorado
has CEJ because John is living in Colorado.
Therefore, the Colorado order becomes the controlling order and is the
order that must be enforced prospectively.
For more information on DCO, refer to CS 154P.
2.
Each individual
party files a notarized written
consent form with the issuing tribunal to have a tribunal in another state
modify the order. Refer to CS 159P
Review and Adjustment for more information.
EXAMPLE:
·
Case Facts:
w John and Wendy are divorced in California in May 1994.
w In December 1994, John moves to Colorado and Wendy requests that
California collect her child support. An
intergovernmental petition is sent to Colorado and Colorado establishes a URESA
order in May 1995.
w In October 1995, Wendy closes her case with California and moves
to Utah.
w Colorado attempts to enforce the order, but because there are
multiple orders they must first make a controlling order determination and
determine CEJ.
·
Case
Analysis:
w California order: All of
the parties have left the state of California; therefore, California no longer
has CEJ.
w Colorado order: Colorado
has CEJ because John is living in Colorado.
Therefore, the Colorado order becomes the controlling order and is the
order that must be enforced prospectively.
·
Case
Action: In January 1996, Wendy requests
that Utah help her modify the Colorado order.
w John and Wendy both agree to have the state of Utah modify the Colorado
order. However, Utah does not have CEJ
and it must have CEJ in order to proceed with a modification.
w John and Wendy first file a
notarized written consent form with the State of Colorado (tribunal issuing the
order) consenting/requesting that the state of Utah be allowed to assume CEJ
and register the Colorado order for purposes of modification. A copy of the written request form is also
sent to the state of Utah. Upon receipt
of the notarized written consent form:
Ψ
Colorado
loses CEJ;
Ψ
Utah
registers the Colorado order for purposes of modification; and,
Ψ
Utah
assumes CEJ of the order.
Procedures
Determine CEJ One Order
If there is
only one order in the case or a controlling order determination has already
been made, follow the procedures below to determine if the issuing state has
CEJ; e.g., you are reviewing the order for modification, if appropriate.
1.
Does the
child, the CP, or the NCP live in the state that issued the order?
a.
YES That
state has CEJ and the order is the controlling order. This state is responsible for the review and,
if appropriate, modification of the order.
b.
NO The
issuing state does not have CEJ, but the order is the controlling order (even
if everyone has left the state). The
responding state (also known as the non-requesting state) is responsible for
the review and, if appropriate, modification of the order (see CS 159P).
EXAMPLE:
·
Case Facts:
w The CP and child live in Idaho.
w The NCP lives in Utah.
w The order was issued by the state of Nevada.
·
Case
Analysis: The CP applies for IV-D
services with the state of Idaho and requests a review of the order. However, since none of the parties live in
Nevada, Nevada loses CEJ over the order.
But the Nevada order is the only order; therefore, it becomes the
controlling order and is the only order that can be registered in another state
for purposes of modification.
Because
Idaho is requesting the review, Utah becomes the responding state (or
non-requesting state) and is responsible for the review and, if appropriate,
must register the order for purposes of modification.
Procedures Determine CEJ
Multiple Orders
If there are two or more orders
in the case and you are making a controlling order determination, follow the
procedures below to determine which state(s) has CEJ.
1.
Do any of
the parties (CP, NCP, or child(ren) live in a state that issued an order?
a.
YES How
many states are involved?
i.
One state
That state has CEJ and the order is the controlling order. The state is responsible for the review, and,
if appropriate, modification of the order.
ii.
Two states
or more Is one of those states the childs home state?
NOTE: A state becomes the
childs home state if the child has resided with one of the parents or a
guardian in that state for at least six months; or, since birth, if the child
is less than six months old.
A.
Yes That
state has CEJ and the order is the controlling order. The state is responsible for the review, and,
if appropriate, modification of the order.
EXAMPLE
·
Case Facts:
w The
CP lives in Wyoming.
w The
NCP lives in Oregon.
w The
child lives in Idaho with the grandmother.
w Orders
were issued by the following states:
§ State
of Idaho;
§ State
of Oregon; and
§ State
of Montana.
·
Case Analysis: Two of the
parties (NCP and child) are currently living in a state that issued an order:
Idaho and Oregon. Therefore, both of the
states have CEJ.
Whenever
there is more than one CEJ state, you must determine if one of the states is
the child(ren)s home state. Since the
child lives with the grandma in Idaho, the Idaho order must be recognized as
the CEJ, controlling order. Refer to CS
154P for more information. Idaho then
becomes the state responsible for the review and, if appropriate, modification
of the order.
B.
No If
there is not a childs home state, then the state with the most recent order is
the CEJ state and the order is the controlling order. That state is responsible for the review,
and, if appropriate, modification of the order.
EXAMPLE
·
Case Facts:
w The CP lives in Wyoming.
w The NCP lives in Oregon.
w The child moved to Idaho two months ago to live with the
grandmother.
w Orders were issued by the following states:
§
State of
Wyoming May 1995;
§
State of
Oregon October 1993; and
§
State of
Montana July 1994.
w Two of the parties (CP and NCP) are currently living in a state
that issued an order: Wyoming and Oregon.
Therefore, both of the states have CEJ.
·
Case
Analysis: Whenever there is more than
one CEJ state, you must determine if one of the states is the child(ren)s home
state. Since the child moved to Idaho
only two months ago to live with the grandma, there is not a home state.
If
there is not a home state, you must recognize the most recent order. The Wyoming order is the most recent order
and must be recognized as the CEJ, controlling order (see CS 154P). Wyoming then becomes the state responsible
for the review and, if appropriate, modification of the order.
b.
NO There
is NOT a CEJ state. Therefore, a new
order must be issued, which will be recognized as the controlling order, and
that state has CEJ.
EXAMPLE
·
Case Facts:
w
The CP and child live in Wyoming.
w
The CP requests that Wyoming child support enforce the child
support order.
w
The NCP lives in California.
w
Orders were issued by the following states:
§ The
State of Idaho; and
§ The
State of Oregon.
·
Case Analysis:
w
Wyoming attempts to enforce the child support order, but because
there are multiple orders, Wyoming must first make a controlling order
determination.
§ Idaho
order: None of the parties reside in the
state of Idaho; therefore, Idaho no
longer has CEJ.
§ Oregon
order: None of the parties reside in the
state of Oregon; therefore, Oregon no
longer has CEJ.
w
Because no state has CEJ, the responding state, Wyoming, must
issue a new order. The new order will be
recognized as the controlling order and Wyoming obtains CEJ.