Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7205 (2026)

Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support orders.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 7205. Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support orders.

(a) Extent.--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 the 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 the order.

(b) Restriction.--A tribunal of this State that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this State may not exercise its 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) the order is not the controlling order.

(c) Modification.--(Deleted by amendment).

(d) Faith and credit.--If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order under a law substantially similar to this part 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.1) Modification.--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) Interim orders.--A temporary support order issued ex parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing, exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.

(f) Duration and modification of spousal support orders.--(Deleted by amendment).

(Dec. 16, 1997, P.L.549, No.58, eff. Jan. 1, 1998; Dec. 28, 2015, P.L.559, No.94, eff. imd.)

1997 Amendment. Act 58 of 1997 was suspended by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1910.50(3), as amended May 31, 2000, insofar as it is inconsistent with Rule No. 1910.20 relating to the availability of remedies for collection of past due and overdue support.

Cross References. Section 7205 is referred to in sections 7202.1, 7207 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1998–2018 · leading case: Nutter v. Dougherty, 938 A.2d 401 (Pa. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nutter v. Dougherty, 938 A.2d 401 (Pa. 2007). · cites it 2× “1 ("The locution `shall promptly obtain and shall thereafter maintain' is taken from the corresponding regulation under federal securities law, 17 C.”

Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “See also 23 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 7205(a)(1)-(2) (2007) (stating same).”

Casiano v. Casiano, 815 A.2d 638 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). “23 Pa.C.S. § 7205; Reichenbacher v. Reichenbacher, 729 A.”

Clark v. Clark, 714 A.2d 427 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998). “23 Pa.C.S. § 7205. Obviously, as both parties now live in Pennsylvania, Indiana no longer meets these requirements.”

A.S.C. v. N.B.C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “23 Pa.C.S. § 7205(a)(2). Considering Father’s assertions, it appears that his position is controlling.”

— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7205(a)(1) — 1 case

Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “See also 23 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 7205(a)(1)-(2) (2007) (stating same).”

— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7205(a)(2) — 1 case

A.S.C. v. N.B.C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “23 Pa.C.S. § 7205(a)(2). Considering Father’s assertions, it appears that his position is controlling.”

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.