Ark. Code Ann. » Title 9 Chapter 17
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-611 (2020)

Modification of child-support order of another state

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. If § 9-17-613 does not apply, upon petition a tribunal of this state may modify a child-support order issued in another state which is registered in this state if, after notice and hearing, the tribunal finds that:
    1. the following requirements are met:
      1. neither the child, nor the obligee who is an individual, nor the obligor resides in the issuing state;
      2. a petitioner who is a nonresident of this state seeks modification; and
      3. the respondent is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the tribunal of this state; or
    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.
  2. 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.
  3. A tribunal of this state may not modify any aspect of a child-support order that may not be modified under the law 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 so recognized under § 9-17-207 establishes the aspects of the support order which are nonmodifiable.
  4. 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 the imposition of a further obligation of support by a tribunal of this state.
  5. On the 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.
  6. Notwithstanding subsections (a) through (e) and § 9-17-201(b), a tribunal of this state retains jurisdiction to modify an order issued by a tribunal of this state if:
    1. one party resides in another state; and
    2. the other party resides outside the United States.

History. Acts 1993, No. 468, § 1; 1997, No. 1063, § 18; 2015, No. 888, § 1.

Amendments. The 2015 amendment rewrote (a); in (c), added “including the duration of the obligation of support” in the first sentence and substituted “same child” for “child” in the second sentence; inserted present (d) and redesignated former (d) as (e); in (e), inserted “by a tribunal of this state” and substituted “the tribunal of” for “a tribunal of”; and added (f).

Case Notes

Construction.

Under the former Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, which was repealed and replaced by the Uniform Interstate Enforcement of Support Act, an order filed by an Arkansas court that imposes a child support obligation different from the obligation originally imposed by the sister state does not change or modify the sister state's decree, absent express words of nullification. Jefferson County Child Support Enforcement Unit v. Hollands, 327 Ark. 456, 939 S.W.2d 302 (1997).

Modification of Order.

Chancellor erred in modifying a Florida child support order where none of the requirements of § 9-17-603(c) or this section were met. Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Cook, 60 Ark. App. 193, 959 S.W.2d 763 (1998); Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Neely, 73 Ark. App. 198, 41 S.W.3d 423 (2001).

Trial court was not required to exercise its jurisdiction over the Office of Child Support Enforcement's petition to increase the amount of child support to be paid by the father; under subsection (a) of this section, the trial court “may” modify an order but is not required to modify such an order. Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Wood, 373 Ark. 595, 285 S.W.3d 599 (2008).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1998–2008 · leading case: Mathews v. Mathews, 244 S.W.3d 660 (Ark. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mathews v. Mathews, 244 S.W.3d 660 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 4× “" Comment to Ark.Code Ann. § 9-17-611 (Repl.2005) (emphasis added).”
Off. of Child Support Enf't v. Neely, 41 S.W.3d 423 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “Therefore, the requirements for modification set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-611 have not been met, and the chancellor erred in modifying appellee’s support obligation.”
Fox v. Fox, 7 S.W.3d 339 (Ark. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-611 (Repl. 1998). In response, appellant argued that when appellee asked that the Louisiana custody order be modified, jurisdiction for all purposes attached.”
Off. of Child Support Enf't v. Cook, 959 S.W.2d 763 (Ark. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-611 (Repl. 1993). Clearly, appellee satisfied none of the requirements with respect to the limitations placed upon the modification of child-support orders issued in other states.”
Off. of Child Support Enf't v. Wood, 285 S.W.3d 599 (Ark. 2008). · cites it 6× “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-611 (a), (b) (Repl.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-611(a): 1 case
Off. of Child Support Enf't v. Wood, 285 S.W.3d 599 (Ark. 2008). “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-611 (a), (b) (Repl.”
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.