Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 25.25.205 (2026)
Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support order
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 25.25.205. Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support order.
(a) 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,
(1) 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
(2) 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 its order.
(b) 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
(1) 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
(2) the tribunal's order is not the controlling order.
(c) If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order under this chapter or a law substantially similar to this chapter 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.
(d) 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.
(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(f) [Repealed, § 32 ch 102 SLA 2015.]
(a) 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,
(1) 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
(2) 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 its order.
(b) 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
(1) 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
(2) the tribunal's order is not the controlling order.
(c) If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order under this chapter or a law substantially similar to this chapter 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.
(d) 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.
(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) [Repealed, § 32 ch 102 SLA 2015.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2022 · leading case: Berry v. Coulman, 440 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2019).
Berry v. Coulman, 440 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2019). “Finally he argued for the first time that Alaska no longer had jurisdiction to modify the order pursuant to AS 25.25.205 9 and the federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA).”
McDonald v. Trihub, 173 P.3d 416 (Alaska 2007). “102 13 and AS 25.25.205(a), 14 and that absent an appeal of the administrative decision, the court must give effect to the "legislature's intent" recognizing their jurisdiction.”
Teseniar v. Spicer, 74 P.3d 910 (Alaska 2003). “AS 25.25.205(a)(1), (2); see also State, Child Support Enforcement Div.”
Child Support Enf't Div. of Alaska v. Brenckle, 675 N.E.2d 390 (Mass. 1997). “209D, § 2-205; Alaska Stat. § 25.25.205 (Michie 1996). The parties’ submissions to the District Court addressed their claims only under URESA, and we assume that the findings of the District Court were made pursuant to URESA.”
State, Child Support Enf't Div. v. Bromley, 987 P.2d 183 (Alaska 1999). “AS 25.25.205(a)(1). 26 . AS 25.25.604(a).”
State, Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Div. Ex Rel. Wallace v. Delaney, 962 P.2d 187 (Alaska 1998). “” AS 25.25.205(a). Furthermore, “[t]he law of the issuing state governs the nature, extent, amount, and duration of current payments and other obligations of support and the payment of arrearages under the order.”
Clinton Swaney v. Aimee Swaney (Granger) (Alaska 2017). “25 Subject matter jurisdiction to modify an existing child support order is controlled by AS 25.25.205, a provision of Alaska’s version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.”
Mark Daum v. Kimberly Daum, 518 P.3d 718 (Alaska 2022). “The statutory requirements for continuing, exclusive jurisdiction are met. CSSD is an Alaskan “tribunal”; its original order was issued pursuant to Alaska law; and the superior court has the authority to modify a CSSD child support order.”
Francesca S., f/k/a Francesca K. v. Shawn K. (Alaska 2021). “”11 When we do review factual findings, “we ordinarily will not overturn a trial court’s finding based on 6 Francesca asserts that the current child support calculation is incorrect, but it does not appear that she has raised the issue with the superior court.”
Charles Hopson & Adeline Hopson v. Rashad Hart, Sr. (Alaska 2012). “2d 183, 188-89 (Alaska 1999); AS 25.25.205; see also 42 U.S.C. § 666 (f) (2006) (requiring “each State must have in effect the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act”).”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.25.205(a) — 5 cases
McDonald v. Trihub, 173 P.3d 416 (Alaska 2007). “102 13 and AS 25.25.205(a), 14 and that absent an appeal of the administrative decision, the court must give effect to the "legislature's intent" recognizing their jurisdiction.”
State, Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Div. Ex Rel. Wallace v. Delaney, 962 P.2d 187 (Alaska 1998). “” AS 25.25.205(a). Furthermore, “[t]he law of the issuing state governs the nature, extent, amount, and duration of current payments and other obligations of support and the payment of arrearages under the order.”
Clinton Swaney v. Aimee Swaney (Granger) (Alaska 2017). “25 Subject matter jurisdiction to modify an existing child support order is controlled by AS 25.25.205, a provision of Alaska’s version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.”
Mark Daum v. Kimberly Daum, 518 P.3d 718 (Alaska 2022). “The statutory requirements for continuing, exclusive jurisdiction are met. CSSD is an Alaskan “tribunal”; its original order was issued pursuant to Alaska law; and the superior court has the authority to modify a CSSD child support order.”
Francesca S., f/k/a Francesca K. v. Shawn K. (Alaska 2021). “”11 When we do review factual findings, “we ordinarily will not overturn a trial court’s finding based on 6 Francesca asserts that the current child support calculation is incorrect, but it does not appear that she has raised the issue with the superior court.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.25.205(a)(1) — 4 cases
Berry v. Coulman, 440 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2019). “Finally he argued for the first time that Alaska no longer had jurisdiction to modify the order pursuant to AS 25.25.205 9 and the federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA).”
State, Child Support Enf't Div. v. Bromley, 987 P.2d 183 (Alaska 1999). “AS 25.25.205(a)(1). 26 . AS 25.25.604(a).”
Teseniar v. Spicer, 74 P.3d 910 (Alaska 2003). “AS 25.25.205(a)(1), (2); see also State, Child Support Enforcement Div.”
Clinton Swaney v. Aimee Swaney (Granger) (Alaska 2017). “25 Subject matter jurisdiction to modify an existing child support order is controlled by AS 25.25.205, a provision of Alaska’s version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.25.205(a)(2) — 1 case
Clinton Swaney v. Aimee Swaney (Granger) (Alaska 2017). “25 Subject matter jurisdiction to modify an existing child support order is controlled by AS 25.25.205, a provision of Alaska’s version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.25.205(b) — 1 case
Teseniar v. Spicer, 74 P.3d 910 (Alaska 2003). “AS 25.25.205(a)(1), (2); see also State, Child Support Enforcement Div.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.25.205(b)(1) — 1 case
Clinton Swaney v. Aimee Swaney (Granger) (Alaska 2017). “25 Subject matter jurisdiction to modify an existing child support order is controlled by AS 25.25.205, a provision of Alaska’s version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.25.205(c) — 1 case
State, Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Div. Ex Rel. Wallace v. Delaney, 962 P.2d 187 (Alaska 1998). “” AS 25.25.205(a). Furthermore, “[t]he law of the issuing state governs the nature, extent, amount, and duration of current payments and other obligations of support and the payment of arrearages under the order.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.