Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 88.6111 (2025)
Modification of child support order of another state.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
88.6111 Modification of child support order of another state.—
(1) If s. 88.6131 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:
(a) 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
(b) This state is the state of 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 s. 88.2071 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 imposition of a further obligation of support by a tribunal of this state.
(5) 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 of continuing exclusive jurisdiction.
(6) Notwithstanding subsections (1)-(5) and s. 88.2011(2), a tribunal of this state retains jurisdiction to modify an order issued by a tribunal of this state if:
(a) One party resides in another state; and
(b) The other party resides outside the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “Under section 88.6111, if all of the individual parties reside in Florida and the child does not reside in the issuing state, Florida may modify the order.”
Pulkkinen v. Pulkkinen, 127 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). “Section 88.6111(1), Florida Statutes (2010), which was enacted pursuant to a federal mandate, precludes jurisdiction over the modification proceeding in this case, and federal law does not conflict with this state law.”
Lamancusa v. DOR, 250 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). “I agree that, based on a plain reading of section 88.6111, Florida Statutes (2013), the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to modify the duration of child support.”
Arquette v. Rutter, 150 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). “§ 1738B (2012), 1 and Florida’s Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”), section 88.6111, Florida Statutes (2012).”
Jyrki Pulkkinen, Former Husband v. Karen Elaine Pulkkinen n/k/a Karen Elaine etc., 226 So. 3d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). “The final judgment and child support orders were ultimately registered under section 88.6111(1), Florida Statutes (2010).”
State, Dep't of Revenue v. Mayes, 784 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). “The Department of Revenue filed a petition to register and enforce a Michigan decree ordering child support to be paid by appellee. The mother and children still reside in Michigan.”
Elizabeth Kessinger, Former Wife v. Clifton J. Kessinger, Former Husband, 228 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). “Section 88.6111 allows for modifications if the petitioner is not a Florida resident and the children are Florida residents.”
SCDSS v. Karen A. Anise (S.C. Ct. App. 2025). “establishes the aspects of the support order which are nonmodifiable.”
Mancari v. Hoffmann, 824 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “See Section 88.6111(l)(a)-(b) (2001). COBB, PETERSON and PALMER, JJ.”
— 88.6111(1) — 4 cases
Pulkkinen v. Pulkkinen, 127 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). “Section 88.6111(1), Florida Statutes (2010), which was enacted pursuant to a federal mandate, precludes jurisdiction over the modification proceeding in this case, and federal law does not conflict with this state law.”
Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “Under section 88.6111, if all of the individual parties reside in Florida and the child does not reside in the issuing state, Florida may modify the order.”
Arquette v. Rutter, 150 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). “§ 1738B (2012), 1 and Florida’s Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”), section 88.6111, Florida Statutes (2012).”
Jyrki Pulkkinen, Former Husband v. Karen Elaine Pulkkinen n/k/a Karen Elaine etc., 226 So. 3d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). “The final judgment and child support orders were ultimately registered under section 88.6111(1), Florida Statutes (2010).”
— 88.6111(1)(a) — 2 cases
Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “Under section 88.6111, if all of the individual parties reside in Florida and the child does not reside in the issuing state, Florida may modify the order.”
Lamancusa v. DOR, 250 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). “I agree that, based on a plain reading of section 88.6111, Florida Statutes (2013), the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to modify the duration of child support.”
— 88.6111(3) — 1 case
Lamancusa v. DOR, 250 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). “I agree that, based on a plain reading of section 88.6111, Florida Statutes (2013), the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to modify the duration of child support.”
— 88.6111(l)(a) — 2 cases
Pulkkinen v. Pulkkinen, 127 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). “Section 88.6111(1), Florida Statutes (2010), which was enacted pursuant to a federal mandate, precludes jurisdiction over the modification proceeding in this case, and federal law does not conflict with this state law.”
Mancari v. Hoffmann, 824 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “See Section 88.6111(l)(a)-(b) (2001). COBB, PETERSON and PALMER, JJ.”
— 88.6111(l)(b) — 1 case
Pulkkinen v. Pulkkinen, 127 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). “Section 88.6111(1), Florida Statutes (2010), which was enacted pursuant to a federal mandate, precludes jurisdiction over the modification proceeding in this case, and federal law does not conflict with this state law.”
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.