25-1311. Modification of child support order of another state
A. If section 25-1313 does not apply, on petition, a tribunal of this state may modify a child support order issued in another state that is registered in this state if, after notice and a hearing, it finds that any of the following is true:
1. The following requirements are met:
(a) Neither the child, the obligee who is an individual nor the obligor resides in the issuing state.
(b) A petitioner who is a nonresident of this state seeks modification.
(c) The respondent is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the tribunal of this state.
2. This state is the residence of the child, or a party who is an individual is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the tribunal of this state, and all of the parties who are individuals have filed consents in a record in the issuing tribunal for a tribunal of this state to modify the support order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
B. Modification of a registered child support order is subject to the same requirements, procedures and defenses that apply to the modification of an order issued by a tribunal of this state, and the order may be enforced and satisfied in the same manner.
C. A tribunal of this state may not modify any aspect of a child support order that may not be modified under the laws of the issuing state, including the duration of the obligation of support. If two or more tribunals have issued child support orders for the same obligor and same child, the order that controls and must be recognized under section 25-1227 establishes the aspects of the support order that are nonmodifiable.
D. In a proceeding to modify a child support order, the law of the state that is determined to have issued the initial controlling order governs the duration of the obligation of support. The obligor's fulfillment of the duty of support established by that order precludes imposition of a further obligation of support by a tribunal of this state.
E. On issuance of an order by a tribunal of this state modifying a child support order issued in another state, the tribunal of this state becomes the tribunal having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
F. Notwithstanding this section and section 25-1221, subsection B, a tribunal of this state retains jurisdiction to modify an order issued by a tribunal of this state if both of the following are true:
1. One party resides in another state.
2. The other party resides outside the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case:
Glover v. Glover, 289 P.3d 12 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
Glover v. Glover, 289 P.3d 12 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 6× “§ 25-1311(A) (providing court may modify another state’s order after it has been “registered in this state” when the petitioning party resides outside Arizona, the non-petitioning party is subject to personal jurisdiction in Arizona, and the child lives outside the issuing…”
Balazic v. Balazic, 334 P.3d 771 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “§ 25-1225; see also A.R.S. § 25-1311(E) (stating that Arizona assumes continuing, exclusive jurisdiction when Arizona court issues a modified order).”
Greenham v. Hope (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “¶6 Mother again appealed; we held that the superior court had subject-matter jurisdiction to enter the child support order pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-1311(A)(2) (2018) and that Mother had waived any objection to personal jurisdiction by appearing in the action.”
Crook v. Crook (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 25-1311(A). Such modification is subject to the same requirements that apply to modification of a child support order issued by a court in Arizona.”
Hope v. Hope (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. §§ 25-1311, –1302; Glover, 231 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1311(A) — 2 cases
Glover v. Glover, 289 P.3d 12 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“§ 25-1311(A) (providing court may modify another state’s order after it has been “registered in this state” when the petitioning party resides outside Arizona, the non-petitioning party is subject to personal jurisdiction in Arizona, and the child lives outside the issuing…”
Crook v. Crook (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
“A.R.S. § 25-1311(A). Such modification is subject to the same requirements that apply to modification of a child support order issued by a court in Arizona.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1311(A)(2) — 1 case
Greenham v. Hope (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“¶6 Mother again appealed; we held that the superior court had subject-matter jurisdiction to enter the child support order pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-1311(A)(2) (2018) and that Mother had waived any objection to personal jurisdiction by appearing in the action.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1311(E) — 1 case
Balazic v. Balazic, 334 P.3d 771 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“§ 25-1225; see also A.R.S. § 25-1311(E) (stating that Arizona assumes continuing, exclusive jurisdiction when Arizona court issues a modified 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.