§576B-205 - Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
[§576B-205] Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. (a) A tribunal of this State issuing a support order consistent with the law of this State has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a child support order:
(1) As long as this State remains the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued; or
(2) Until all of the parties who are individuals have filed written consents with the tribunal of this State for a tribunal of another state to modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
(b) A tribunal of this State issuing a child support order consistent with the law of this State may not exercise its continuing jurisdiction to modify the order if the order has been modified by a tribunal of another state pursuant to this chapter or a law substantially similar to this chapter.
(c) If a child support order of this State is modified by a tribunal of another state pursuant to this chapter or a law substantially similar to this chapter, a tribunal of this State loses its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction with regard to prospective enforcement of the order issued in this State, and may only:
(1) Enforce the order that was modified as to amounts accruing before the modification;
(2) Enforce nonmodifiable aspects of that order; and
(3) Provide other appropriate relief for violations of that order which occurred before the effective date of the modification.
(d) A tribunal of this State shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of a tribunal of another state which has issued a child support order pursuant to this chapter or a law substantially similar to this chapter.
(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.
(f) A tribunal of this State issuing a support order consistent with the law of this State has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a spousal support order throughout the existence of the support obligation. A tribunal of this State may not modify a spousal support order issued by a tribunal of another state having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over that order under the law of that state. [L 1997, c 295, 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.