ILCS » Chapter 750 · Act 22
Illinois Compiled Statutes

750 ILCS 22/611 (2026)

Modification of child-support order of another state

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(750 ILCS 22/611)
    Sec. 611. Modification of child-support order of another state.
    (a) If Section 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:
            (A) neither the child, nor 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; and
            (C) 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.
    (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 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 Section 207 establishes the aspects of the support order which 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 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.
    (f) Notwithstanding subsections (a) through (e) and Section 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.
(Source: P.A. 99-119, eff. 1-1-16.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2003–2016 · leading case: In Re Marriage of Vailas, 939 N.E.2d 565 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Marriage of Vailas, 939 N.E.2d 565 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 6× “See 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2008). Petitioner contends that section 611 is not relevant because respondent was served personally within Illinois, which is sufficient under section 201(a)(1) of the Family Support Act for jurisdiction.”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 5× “, 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2012) (governing modification where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing state and the parties reside in different states); 750 ILCS 22/613 (West 2012) (where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing state and the parties both…”
In re Marriage of Jones, 2016 IL App (3d) 150237 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 3× “” 750 ILCS 22/611(c) (West 2012). The Act further states that the law of the issuing state “governs the duration of the obligation of support” and provides that the obligor’s fulfillment of his initial duty of support “precludes imposition of a further obligation of support” by…”
Lombardi v. Van Deusen, 938 N.E.2d 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “750 ILCS 22/611(a)(2). We have already found that Mother and Father filed a joint consent in Indiana for Illinois to modify the support order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.”
Mattmuller v. Mattmuller Opinion Corrected 3/12/03, 785 N.E.2d 196 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “He argued that, pursuant to section 611 of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (750 ILCS 22/611 (West 1998)), Illinois lacks subject matter jurisdiction to modify child support where the obligor has never been a resident of the state and that the Uniform Child Custody…”
Spicer v. Spicer, 62 So. 3d 798 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “11(A)(2); 750 ILCS 22/611(a)(2). Thus, to divest the Louisiana tribunal of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, both Spicer and Frey would have had to have file a written consent with the issuing court in Ascension Parish.”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 5× “, 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2012) (governing modification where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing state and the parties reside in different states); 750 ILCS -5- 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 22/613 (West 2012) (where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing…”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 5× “, 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2012) (governing modification where all parties and -5- 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 the child(ren) have left the issuing state and the parties reside in different states); 750 ILCS 22/613 (West 2012) (where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing…”
In re Marriage of Vailas (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 5× “See 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2008). Petitioner contends that section 611 is not relevant because respondent was served personally within Illinois, which is sufficient under section 201(a)(1) of the Family Support Act for jurisdiction.”
— 750 ILCS 22/611(a)(1) — 5 cases
In Re Marriage of Vailas, 939 N.E.2d 565 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “See 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2008). Petitioner contends that section 611 is not relevant because respondent was served personally within Illinois, which is sufficient under section 201(a)(1) of the Family Support Act for jurisdiction.”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “, 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2012) (governing modification where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing state and the parties reside in different states); 750 ILCS 22/613 (West 2012) (where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing state and the parties both…”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “, 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2012) (governing modification where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing state and the parties reside in different states); 750 ILCS -5- 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 22/613 (West 2012) (where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing…”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “, 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2012) (governing modification where all parties and -5- 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 the child(ren) have left the issuing state and the parties reside in different states); 750 ILCS 22/613 (West 2012) (where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing…”
In re Marriage of Vailas (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “See 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2008). Petitioner contends that section 611 is not relevant because respondent was served personally within Illinois, which is sufficient under section 201(a)(1) of the Family Support Act for jurisdiction.”
— 750 ILCS 22/611(a)(2) — 4 cases
Lombardi v. Van Deusen, 938 N.E.2d 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “750 ILCS 22/611(a)(2). We have already found that Mother and Father filed a joint consent in Indiana for Illinois to modify the support order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.”
In Re Marriage of Vailas, 939 N.E.2d 565 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “See 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2008). Petitioner contends that section 611 is not relevant because respondent was served personally within Illinois, which is sufficient under section 201(a)(1) of the Family Support Act for jurisdiction.”
Spicer v. Spicer, 62 So. 3d 798 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “11(A)(2); 750 ILCS 22/611(a)(2). Thus, to divest the Louisiana tribunal of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, both Spicer and Frey would have had to have file a written consent with the issuing court in Ascension Parish.”
In re Marriage of Vailas (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “See 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2008). Petitioner contends that section 611 is not relevant because respondent was served personally within Illinois, which is sufficient under section 201(a)(1) of the Family Support Act for jurisdiction.”
— 750 ILCS 22/611(c) — 4 cases
In re Marriage of Jones, 2016 IL App (3d) 150237 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “” 750 ILCS 22/611(c) (West 2012). The Act further states that the law of the issuing state “governs the duration of the obligation of support” and provides that the obligor’s fulfillment of his initial duty of support “precludes imposition of a further obligation of support” by…”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “, 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2012) (governing modification where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing state and the parties reside in different states); 750 ILCS 22/613 (West 2012) (where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing state and the parties both…”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “, 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2012) (governing modification where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing state and the parties reside in different states); 750 ILCS -5- 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 22/613 (West 2012) (where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing…”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “, 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2012) (governing modification where all parties and -5- 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 the child(ren) have left the issuing state and the parties reside in different states); 750 ILCS 22/613 (West 2012) (where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing…”
— 750 ILCS 22/611(d) — 4 cases
In re Marriage of Jones, 2016 IL App (3d) 150237 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “” 750 ILCS 22/611(c) (West 2012). The Act further states that the law of the issuing state “governs the duration of the obligation of support” and provides that the obligor’s fulfillment of his initial duty of support “precludes imposition of a further obligation of support” by…”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “, 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2012) (governing modification where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing state and the parties reside in different states); 750 ILCS 22/613 (West 2012) (where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing state and the parties both…”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “, 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2012) (governing modification where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing state and the parties reside in different states); 750 ILCS -5- 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 22/613 (West 2012) (where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing…”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “, 750 ILCS 22/611 (West 2012) (governing modification where all parties and -5- 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 the child(ren) have left the issuing state and the parties reside in different states); 750 ILCS 22/613 (West 2012) (where all parties and the child(ren) have left the issuing…”
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.