Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 42
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-709 (2026)

Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order and:

(1) at the time of the filing of a request for modification this state is the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued; or

(2) even if this state is not the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued, the parties consent in a record or in open court that the tribunal of this state may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order.

(b) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state shall not exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order if:

(1) all of the parties who are individuals file consent in a record with the tribunal of this state that a tribunal of another state that has jurisdiction over at least one of the parties who is an individual or that is located in the state of residence of the child may modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction; or

(2) its order is not the controlling order.

(c) If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act or a law substantially similar to the act which modifies a child support order of a tribunal of this state, tribunals of this state shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.

(d) A tribunal of this state that lacks continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order may serve as an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to modify a support order issued in that state.

(e) A temporary support order issued ex parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing, exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1999–2001 · leading case: Groseth v. Groseth, 600 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Groseth v. Groseth, 600 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 6× “The outcome of this issue is governed by the UIFSA, particularly, §§ 42-709, 42-716, 42-739, and 42-746. The Legislature amended portions of the UIFSA by enacting 1997 Neb.”
Palagi v. Palagi, 627 N.W.2d 765 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-709 (Reissue 1998) states that Nebraska has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a child support order issued in Nebraska “as long as [Nebraska] remains the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-709(1) — 1 case
Groseth v. Groseth, 600 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 1999). “The outcome of this issue is governed by the UIFSA, particularly, §§ 42-709, 42-716, 42-739, and 42-746. The Legislature amended portions of the UIFSA by enacting 1997 Neb.”
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.