UIFSA: Interstate Child Support Enforcement in Divorce Cases

The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) governs how child support orders are established, enforced, and modified when parents live in different states. Enacted in all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories as a condition of receiving federal welfare funding under 42 U.S.C. § 666, UIFSA eliminates the jurisdictional conflicts that previously allowed support obligations to be undermined by state-hopping. Understanding UIFSA is essential in any divorce case involving child support where the parties reside — or later relocate — to separate states.

Definition and scope

UIFSA is a uniform law drafted by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) and first promulgated in 1992, with major revisions in 1996, 2001, and 2008. Congress mandated adoption of the 1996 version by all states as a condition of Title IV-D funding through the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-193). The 2008 amendments were required to be adopted by states to implement the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, extending UIFSA principles to international enforcement.

The core function of UIFSA is the one-order rule: at any given time, only one controlling child support order governs a child's support obligation, regardless of how many states have issued orders. This prevents conflicting support amounts from multiple state courts and eliminates the strategic filing of competing orders in favorable jurisdictions.

UIFSA applies to:
- Establishment of support orders when the parents reside in different states
- Registration and enforcement of foreign support orders (issued by another state)
- Modification of existing orders when parties have relocated
- International support enforcement through Hague Convention channels

The act does not govern child custody jurisdiction, which operates under the separate Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). UIFSA is narrowly scoped to monetary support obligations only.

How it works

UIFSA establishes a structured framework with discrete operational phases:

Jurisdiction determination — A state establishes "continuing exclusive jurisdiction" (CEJ) over a support order when both parties and the child resided there at the time of the original order. CEJ remains with the issuing state as long as either the obligor (the paying parent), the obligee (the receiving parent), or the child continues to reside there.
Registration of the order — When an obligee seeks enforcement in a state where the obligor now lives, the obligee registers the original order with the tribunal of the responding state. Registration gives the foreign order the same legal effect as a domestic order, enabling wage garnishment, license suspension, and contempt proceedings.
Enforcement — The responding state enforces the registered order under its own procedural mechanisms but applies the substantive law of the issuing state regarding the duration of the obligation and arrearage calculation. The Office of Child Support Services (OCSS), within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, administers interstate enforcement through state IV-D agencies.
Modification — An existing order may be modified only by a tribunal with proper jurisdiction. If both parties have left the issuing state, either party may petition a new state with personal jurisdiction over both parties to modify the order. The new state then assumes CEJ.
Income withholding — UIFSA authorizes direct income withholding across state lines. An obligee may send an income withholding order directly to the obligor's employer in another state without first registering the order in that state. The employer must comply within the same timeframes applicable to domestic withholding orders.

Common scenarios

Scenario A: Post-divorce relocation by the obligor
A child support order is issued in Ohio after a divorce. The obligor subsequently moves to Texas while the obligee and child remain in Ohio. Ohio retains CEJ because the obligee and child still reside there. The obligee may register the Ohio order in Texas to garnish the obligor's wages. Enforcement proceeds under Texas procedures but Ohio's substantive terms govern the obligation amount.

Scenario B: Both parties relocate
An original order was issued in Florida. The obligor moves to Georgia and the obligee moves to North Carolina, taking the child. Florida no longer has CEJ because no party resides there. Either parent may petition a tribunal in Georgia or North Carolina — wherever personal jurisdiction over both parties can be established — to modify the order. This scenario directly connects to post-divorce modification proceedings, which frequently arise in multi-state families.

Scenario C: International enforcement
A U.S. child support order must be enforced against an obligor who has relocated to a country that is a signatory to the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support. Under the 2008 UIFSA amendments, the state IV-D agency transmits the order through the Central Authority network. As of the Hague Conference's records, 44 contracting states have adopted the 2007 Convention (Hague Conference on Private International Law, Status Table).

Scenario D: Competing orders from two states
Prior to UIFSA's universal adoption, two states might each issue support orders for the same child. UIFSA resolves this by requiring tribunals to identify the controlling order using a hierarchy: the order with CEJ controls. If no single state has CEJ, the order issued most recently by a state where a party or child resides is the controlling order.

Decision boundaries

The primary legal question in any UIFSA dispute is which state has or retains CEJ. The following boundaries define the analysis:

CEJ is retained by the issuing state when:
- The obligor continues to reside in the issuing state, or
- The obligee continues to reside in the issuing state, or
- The child continues to reside in the issuing state

CEJ is lost by the issuing state when:
- All three parties (obligor, obligee, and child) have relocated to other states
- Both parties file a written consent for another state to assume jurisdiction

Modification authority limits:
A state may modify a registered foreign order only if it first obtains CEJ. A responding state enforcing a registered order cannot simultaneously modify it unless CEJ has transferred. This distinction — enforcement versus modification — is the most frequently litigated boundary under UIFSA, and courts apply the issuing state's law to determine whether the modification threshold has been met.

Personal jurisdiction requirements:
Even when CEJ has lapsed, a state cannot modify an order without personal jurisdiction over both the obligor and the obligee. Personal jurisdiction under UIFSA can be established through physical presence in the state, consent, or the obligor having previously resided in the state and directed support payments from there.

Employer compliance boundaries:
Under direct income withholding (UIFSA §502), an employer receiving a withholding order from another state must follow the law of the employee's state of employment for procedural matters — such as the maximum withholding percentage — but must honor the amount specified in the foreign order. Employers may not contest the validity of a registered order; that challenge belongs exclusively to the obligor in a proper tribunal.

The interaction between UIFSA enforcement mechanisms and divorce decree enforcement tools — such as contempt of court — remains jurisdiction-specific, as states retain discretion in selecting among available remedies while complying with federal Title IV-D requirements.

References

On this site

Core Topics

Reference

Contact

Contact

Other Pages

U.S. Legal System: Topic Context