ILCS » Chapter 750 · Act 22
Illinois Compiled Statutes

750 ILCS 22/613 (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 IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(750 ILCS 22/613)
    Sec. 613. Jurisdiction to modify child-support order of another state when individual parties reside in this State.
    (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 state's child-support order in a proceeding to register that order.
    (b) 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.
(Source: P.A. 90-240, eff. 7-28-97.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2015–2015 · leading case: In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “” 750 ILCS 22/613(a) (West 2012). Thus, when the trial court entered the parties’ agreed order enrolling the Connecticut judgment for both enforcement and modification, the requirements of section 613 were met and Illinois courts gained the authority to modify that judgment.”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “” 750 ILCS 22/613(a) (West 2012). Thus, when the trial court entered the parties’ agreed order enrolling the Connecticut judgment for both enforcement and modification, the requirements of section 613 were met and Illinois courts gained the authority to modify that judgment.”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “” 750 ILCS 22/613(a) (West 2012). Thus, when the trial court entered the parties’ agreed order enrolling the Connecticut judgment for both enforcement and modification, the requirements of section 613 were met and Illinois courts gained the authority to modify that judgment.”
— 750 ILCS 22/613(a) — 3 cases
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “” 750 ILCS 22/613(a) (West 2012). Thus, when the trial court entered the parties’ agreed order enrolling the Connecticut judgment for both enforcement and modification, the requirements of section 613 were met and Illinois courts gained the authority to modify that judgment.”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “” 750 ILCS 22/613(a) (West 2012). Thus, when the trial court entered the parties’ agreed order enrolling the Connecticut judgment for both enforcement and modification, the requirements of section 613 were met and Illinois courts gained the authority to modify that judgment.”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “” 750 ILCS 22/613(a) (West 2012). Thus, when the trial court entered the parties’ agreed order enrolling the Connecticut judgment for both enforcement and modification, the requirements of section 613 were met and Illinois courts gained the authority to modify that judgment.”
— 750 ILCS 22/613(b) — 3 cases
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “” 750 ILCS 22/613(a) (West 2012). Thus, when the trial court entered the parties’ agreed order enrolling the Connecticut judgment for both enforcement and modification, the requirements of section 613 were met and Illinois courts gained the authority to modify that judgment.”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “” 750 ILCS 22/613(a) (West 2012). Thus, when the trial court entered the parties’ agreed order enrolling the Connecticut judgment for both enforcement and modification, the requirements of section 613 were met and Illinois courts gained the authority to modify that judgment.”
In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “” 750 ILCS 22/613(a) (West 2012). Thus, when the trial court entered the parties’ agreed order enrolling the Connecticut judgment for both enforcement and modification, the requirements of section 613 were met and Illinois courts gained the authority to modify that judgment.”
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.