28 U.S.C. § 1738B: Full faith and credit for child support orders

shall enforce according to its terms a child support order made consistently with this section by a court of another State; and shall not seek or make a modification of such an order except in accordance with subsections (e), (f), and (i). a person under 18 years of age; and a person 18 or more years of age with respect to whom a child support order has been issued pursuant to the laws of a State. The term “child’s State” means the State in which a child resides. The term “child’s home State” means the State in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately preceding the time of filing of a petition or comparable pleading for support and, if a child is less than 6 months old, the State in which the child lived from birth with any of them. A period of temporary absence of any of them is counted as part of the 6-month period. The term “child support” means a payment of money, continuing support, or arrearages or the provision of a benefit (including payment of health insurance, child care, and educational expenses) for the support of a child. means a judgment, decree, or order of a court requiring the payment of child support in periodic amounts or in a lump sum; and a permanent or temporary order; and an initial order or a modification of an order. claims a right to receive child support; is a party to a proceeding that may result in the issuance of a child support order; or is under a child support order; and a State or political subdivision of a State to which the right to obtain child support has been assigned. The term “court” means a court or administrative agency of a State that is authorized by State law to establish the amount of child support payable by a contestant or make a modification of a child support order. The term “modification” means a change in a child support order that affects the amount, scope, or duration of the order and modifies, replaces, supersedes, or otherwise is made subsequent to the child support order. The term “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the territories and possessions of the United States, and Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18 ). has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter and enter such an order; and has personal jurisdiction over the contestants; and reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard is given to the contestants. A court of a State that has made a child support order consistently with this section has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the order if the State is the child’s State or the residence of any individual contestant or the parties have consented in a record or open court that the tribunal of the State may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order, unless the court of another State, acting in accordance with subsections (e) and (f), has made a modification of the order. the court has jurisdiction to make such a child support order pursuant to subsection (i); and 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 and the parties have not consented in a record or open court that the tribunal of the other State may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order; or 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. If only 1 court has issued a child support order, the order of that court must be recognized. If 2 or more courts have issued child support orders for the same obligor and child, and only 1 of the courts would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under this section, the order of that court must be recognized. If 2 or more courts have issued child support orders for the same obligor and child, and more than 1 of the courts would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under this section, an order issued by a court in the current home State of the child must be recognized, but if an order has not been issued in the current home State of the child, the order most recently issued must be recognized. If 2 or more courts have issued child support orders for the same obligor and child, and none of the courts would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under this section, a court having jurisdiction over the parties shall issue a child support order, which must be recognized. The court that has issued an order recognized under this subsection is the court having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under subsection (d). A court of a State that no longer has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of a child support order may enforce the order with respect to nonmodifiable obligations and unsatisfied obligations that accrued before the date on which a modification of the order is made under subsections (e) and (f). In a proceeding to establish, modify, or enforce a child support order, the forum State’s law shall apply except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3). In interpreting a child support order including the duration of current payments and other obligations of support, a court shall apply the law of the State of the court that issued the order. In an action to enforce arrears under a child support order, a court shall apply the statute of limitation of the forum State or the State of the court that issued the order, whichever statute provides the longer period of limitation. If there is no individual contestant or child residing in the issuing State, the party or support enforcement agency seeking to modify, or to modify and enforce, a child support order issued in another State shall register that order in a State with jurisdiction over the nonmovant for the purpose of modification. The amendments made by subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) [amending this section] shall take effect on the date on which the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance enters into force for the United States [The Convention entered into force for the United States Jan. 1, 2017 ]. The amendments made by subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) [amending this section] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [ Sept. 29, 2014 ].” there is a large and growing number of child support cases annually involving disputes between parents who reside in different States; the laws by which the courts of different jurisdictions determine their authority to establish child support orders are not uniform; encourage noncustodial parents to relocate outside the States where their children and the custodial parents reside to avoid the jurisdiction of the courts of such States, resulting in an increase in the amount of interstate travel and communication required to establish and collect on child support orders and a burden on custodial parents that is expensive, time consuming, and disruptive of occupations and commercial activity; contribute to the pressing problem of relatively low levels of child support payments in interstate cases and to inequities in child support payments levels that are based solely on the noncustodial parent’s choice of residence; encourage a disregard of court orders resulting in massive arrearages nationwide; allow noncustodial parents to avoid the payment of regularly scheduled child support payments for extensive periods of time, resulting in substantial hardship for the children for whom support is due and for their custodians; and lead to the excessive relitigation of cases and to the establishment of conflicting orders by the courts of various jurisdictions, resulting in confusion, waste of judicial resources, disrespect for the courts, and a diminution of public confidence in the rule of law; and the failure of the courts of the States to give full faith and credit to the judicial proceedings of the other States; the deprivation of rights of liberty and property without due process of law; burdens on commerce among the States; and harm to the welfare of children and their parents and other custodians. In view of the findings made in subsection (a), it is necessary to establish national standards under which the courts of the various States shall determine their jurisdiction to issue a child support order and the effect to be given by each State to child support orders issued by the courts of other States. to facilitate the enforcement of child support orders among the States; to discourage continuing interstate controversies over child support in the interest of greater financial stability and secure family relationships for the child; and to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict among State courts in the establishment of child support orders.”