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

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-613 (2026)

Jurisdiction to modify child-support order of another state when individual parties reside in this state

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. If all of the parties who are individuals reside in this state and the child does not reside in the issuing state, a tribunal of this state has jurisdiction to enforce and to modify the issuing state's child-support order in a proceeding to register that order.
  2. A tribunal of this state exercising jurisdiction under this section shall apply the provisions of Articles 1 and 2, this article, and the procedural and substantive law of this state to the proceeding for enforcement or modification. Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 do not apply.

History. Acts 1997, No. 1063, § 19; 2015, No. 888, § 1.

Amendments. The 2015 amendment substituted “child-support order” for “child support” in the section heading; and in (b), substituted “Articles 1 and 2” for “articles 1 and 2 of this chapter” in the first sentence, and deleted “of this chapter” following “and 8” in the second sentence.

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Recent Development, Domestic Relations: Child Support Decrees — Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act Mathews v. Mathews, 59 Ark. L. Rev. 1005.

Case Notes

Applicability.

This section did apply where both parties resided in the same state; thus, the jurisdictional issue on which the court of appeals certified the appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court was an inappropriate basis for certification, and the matter was remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of the parties' arguments. Mathews v. Mathews, 368 Ark. 252, 244 S.W.3d 660 (2006).

Requirements Not Met.

Because the Arkansas Supreme Court determined that the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, § 9-17-101 et seq., applied to a case involving the modification of child support, an appellate court was required to reverse a circuit court's decision where the registration requirements for a foreign decree under § 9-17-602 were not followed. Mathews v. Mathews, 98 Ark. App. 30, 249 S.W.3d 840 (2007).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2001–2008 · 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 14× “" Steven petitioned for rehearing from our opinion, contending that this court erred in finding that UIFSA was not applicable, and, more particularly, in failing "to recognize the effect of Ark.Code Ann. § 9-17-613 [(Repl.2002)]." In addition, Steven asserts that this court…”
Off. of Child Support Enf't v. Neely, 41 S.W.3d 423 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). “1998) places the following limitations upon the modification of child-support orders issued in other states: (a) After a child support order issued in another state has been registered in this state, the responding tribunal of this state may modify that order only if § 9-17-613…”
Mathews v. Mathews, 249 S.W.3d 840 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “The court relied upon Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-613 (Repl. 2002), which provides: (a) If all of the parties who are individuals reside in this state and the child does not reside in the issuing state, a tribunal of this state has jurisdiction to enforce and to modify the issuing…”
Off. of Child Support Enf't v. Wood, 285 S.W.3d 599 (Ark. 2008). “The following are limitations upon the modification of child-support orders issued in other states: (a) After a child-support order issued in another state has been registered in this state, the responding tribunal of this state may modify that order only if § 9-17-613 does not…”
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.