28 U.S.C. § 1738B

Full faith and credit for child support orders

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)General Rule.—The appropriate authorities of each State—(1) shall enforce according to its terms a child support order made consistently with this section by a court of another State; and(2) shall not seek or make a modification of such an order except in accordance with subsections (e), (f), and (i).(b)Definitions.—In this section:(1) The term “child” means—(A) a person under 18 years of age; and(B) a person 18 or more years of age with respect to whom a child support order has been issued pursuant to the laws of a State.(2) The term “child’s State” means the State in which a child resides.(3) The term “child’s home State” means the State in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately preceding the time of filing of a petition or comparable pleading for support and, if a child is less than 6 months old, the State in which the child lived from birth with any of them. A period of temporary absence of any of them is counted as part of the 6-month period.(4) The term “child support” means a payment of money, continuing support, or arrearages or the provision of a benefit (including payment of health insurance, child care, and educational expenses) for the support of a child.(5) The term “child support order”—(A) means a judgment, decree, or order of a court requiring the payment of child support in periodic amounts or in a lump sum; and(B) includes—(i) a permanent or temporary order; and(ii) an initial order or a modification of an order.(6) The term “contestant” means—(A) a person (including a parent) who—(i) claims a right to receive child support;(ii) is a party to a proceeding that may result in the issuance of a child support order; or(iii) is under a child support order; and(B) a State or political subdivision of a State to which the right to obtain child support has been assigned.(7) The term “court” means a court or administrative agency of a State that is authorized by State law to establish the amount of child support payable by a contestant or make a modification of a child support order.(8) The term “modification” means a change in a child support order that affects the amount, scope, or duration of the order and modifies, replaces, supersedes, or otherwise is made subsequent to the child support order.(9) The term “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the territories and possessions of the United States, and Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18).(c)Requirements of Child Support Orders.—A child support order made by a court of a State is made consistently with this section if—(1) a court that makes the order, pursuant to the laws of the State in which the court is located and subsections (e), (f), and (g)—(A) has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter and enter such an order; and(B) has personal jurisdiction over the contestants; and(2) reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard is given to the contestants.(d)Continuing Jurisdiction.—A court of a State that has made a child support order consistently with this section has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the order if the State is the child’s State or the residence of any individual contestant or the parties have consented in a record or open court that the tribunal of the State may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order, unless the court of another State, acting in accordance with subsections (e) and (f), has made a modification of the order.(e)Authority To Modify Orders.—A court of a State may modify a child support order issued by a court of another State if—(1) the court has jurisdiction to make such a child support order pursuant to subsection (i); and(2)(A) the court of the other State no longer has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the child support order because that State no longer is the child’s State or the residence of any individual contestant and the parties have not consented in a record or open court that the tribunal of the other State may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order; or(B) each individual contestant has filed written consent with the State of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction for a court of another State to modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the order.(f)Recognition of Child Support Orders.—If 1 or more child support orders have been issued with regard to an obligor and a child, a court shall apply the following rules in determining which order to recognize for purposes of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction and enforcement:(1) If only 1 court has issued a child support order, the order of that court must be recognized.(2) If 2 or more courts have issued child support orders for the same obligor and child, and only 1 of the courts would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under this section, the order of that court must be recognized.(3) If 2 or more courts have issued child support orders for the same obligor and child, and more than 1 of the courts would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under this section, an order issued by a court in the current home State of the child must be recognized, but if an order has not been issued in the current home State of the child, the order most recently issued must be recognized.(4) If 2 or more courts have issued child support orders for the same obligor and child, and none of the courts would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under this section, a court having jurisdiction over the parties shall issue a child support order, which must be recognized.(5) The court that has issued an order recognized under this subsection is the court having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under subsection (d).(g)Enforcement of Modified Orders.—A court of a State that no longer has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of a child support order may enforce the order with respect to nonmodifiable obligations and unsatisfied obligations that accrued before the date on which a modification of the order is made under subsections (e) and (f).(h)Choice of Law.—(1)In general.—In a proceeding to establish, modify, or enforce a child support order, the forum State’s law shall apply except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3).(2)Law of state of issuance of order.—In interpreting a child support order including the duration of current payments and other obligations of support, a court shall apply the law of the State of the court that issued the order.(3)Period of limitation.—In an action to enforce arrears under a child support order, a court shall apply the statute of limitation of the forum State or the State of the court that issued the order, whichever statute provides the longer period of limitation.(i)Registration for Modification.—If there is no individual contestant or child residing in the issuing State, the party or support enforcement agency seeking to modify, or to modify and enforce, a child support order issued in another State shall register that order in a State with jurisdiction over the nonmovant for the purpose of modification.(Added Pub. L. 103–383, § 3(a), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4064; amended Pub. L. 104–193, title III, § 322, Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2221; Pub. L. 105–33, title V, § 5554, Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 636; Pub. L. 113–183, title III, § 301(f)(2), Sept. 29, 2014, 128 Stat. 1944.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2014—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 113–183, § 301(f)(2)(C), inserted designations for pars. (1) to (9) and “The term” after each designation.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 113–183, § 301(f)(2)(A), substituted “individual contestant or the parties have consented in a record or open court that the tribunal of the State may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order,” for “individual contestant”.

Subsec. (e)(2)(A). Pub. L. 113–183, § 301(f)(2)(B), substituted “individual contestant and the parties have not consented in a record or open court that the tribunal of the other State may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order” for “individual contestant”.

1997—Subsec. (f)(4). Pub. L. 105–33, § 5554(1), substituted “a court having jurisdiction over the parties shall issue a child support order, which must be recognized.” for “a court may issue a child support order, which must be recognized.”

Subsec. (f)(5). Pub. L. 105–33, § 5554(2), inserted “under subsection (d)” after “jurisdiction”.

1996—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 104–193, § 322(1), substituted “subsections (e), (f), and (i)” for “subsection (e)”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–193, § 322(2), inserted par. defining “child’s home State”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–193, § 322(3), inserted “by a court of a State” before “is made” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 104–193, § 322(4), inserted “and subsections (e), (f), and (g)” after “located”.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 104–193, § 322(5), inserted “individual” before “contestant” and substituted “subsections (e) and (f)” for “subsection (e)”.

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 104–193, § 322(6), substituted “modify a child support order issued” for “make a modification of a child support order with respect to a child that is made” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 104–193, § 322(7), inserted “pursuant to subsection (i)” after “order”.

Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 104–193, § 322(8), inserted “individual” before “contestant” in subpars. (A) and (B) and substituted “with the State of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction for a court of another State to modify the order and assume” for “to that court’s making the modification and assuming” in subpar. (B).

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 104–193, § 322(10), added subsec. (f). Former subsec. (f) redesignated (g).

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 104–193, § 322(11), substituted “Modified” for “Prior” in heading and “subsections (e) and (f)” for “subsection (e)” in text.

Pub. L. 104–193, § 322(9), redesignated subsec. (f) as (g). Former subsec. (g) redesignated (h).

Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 104–193, § 322(12), inserted “including the duration of current payments and other obligations of support” before comma in par. (2) and “arrears under” after “enforce” in par. (3).

Pub. L. 104–193, § 322(9), redesignated subsec. (g) as (h).

Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 104–193, § 322(13), added subsec. (i).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2014 Amendment

Pub. L. 113–183, title III, § 301(f)(3)(B), Sept. 29, 2014, 128 Stat. 1945, provided that:“(i) The amendments made by subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) [amending this section] shall take effect on the date on which the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance enters into force for the United States [The Convention entered into force for the United States Jan. 1, 2017].“(ii) The amendments made by subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) [amending this section] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Sept. 29, 2014].”

Effective Date of 1997 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–33 effective as if included in enactment of title III of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–193, see section 5557 of Pub. L. 105–33, set out as a note under section 608 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

For effective date of amendment by Pub. L. 104–193, see section 395(a)–(c) of Pub. L. 104–193, set out as a note under section 654 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Congressional Findings and Declaration of Purpose

Pub. L. 103–383, § 2, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4063, provided that:“(a)Findings.—The Congress finds that—“(1) there is a large and growing number of child support cases annually involving disputes between parents who reside in different States;“(2) the laws by which the courts of different jurisdictions determine their authority to establish child support orders are not uniform;“(3) those laws, along with the limits imposed by the Federal system on the authority of each State to take certain actions outside its own boundaries—“(A) encourage noncustodial parents to relocate outside the States where their children and the custodial parents reside to avoid the jurisdiction of the courts of such States, resulting in an increase in the amount of interstate travel and communication required to establish and collect on child support orders and a burden on custodial parents that is expensive, time consuming, and disruptive of occupations and commercial activity;“(B) contribute to the pressing problem of relatively low levels of child support payments in interstate cases and to inequities in child support payments levels that are based solely on the noncustodial parent’s choice of residence;“(C) encourage a disregard of court orders resulting in massive arrearages nationwide;“(D) allow noncustodial parents to avoid the payment of regularly scheduled child support payments for extensive periods of time, resulting in substantial hardship for the children for whom support is due and for their custodians; and“(E) lead to the excessive relitigation of cases and to the establishment of conflicting orders by the courts of various jurisdictions, resulting in confusion, waste of judicial resources, disrespect for the courts, and a diminution of public confidence in the rule of law; and“(4) among the results of the conditions described in this subsection are—“(A) the failure of the courts of the States to give full faith and credit to the judicial proceedings of the other States;“(B) the deprivation of rights of liberty and property without due process of law;“(C) burdens on commerce among the States; and“(D) harm to the welfare of children and their parents and other custodians.“(b)Statement of Policy.—In view of the findings made in subsection (a), it is necessary to establish national standards under which the courts of the various States shall determine their jurisdiction to issue a child support order and the effect to be given by each State to child support orders issued by the courts of other States.“(c)Purposes.—The purposes of this Act [enacting this section and provisions set out as a note under section 1 of this title] are—“(1) to facilitate the enforcement of child support orders among the States;“(2) to discourage continuing interstate controversies over child support in the interest of greater financial stability and secure family relationships for the child; and“(3) to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict among State courts in the establishment of child support orders.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 227 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Kelly v. Otte, 474 S.E.2d 131 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kelly v. Otte, 474 S.E.2d 131 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 14× “This case presents an issue of first impression as to the effect of the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (28 U.S.C. § 1738B, Pub. L. No. 103-383 ) on the now-repealed North Carolina Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) (N.”

Auclair v. Bolderson, 6 A.D.3d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · cites it 10× “Initially, both FFCCSOA and UIFSA grant “continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over” a child support order to the state that issued the order (28 USC § 1738B [d]; accord Family Ct Act § 580-205 [a], [d]).”

Matter of Spencer v. Spencer, 882 N.E.2d 886 (NY 2008). · cites it 6× “To remedy this impediment to efficient nationwide enforcement of child support orders, in 1994 Congress enacted the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA), which requires each state to give full faith and credit to another state’s validly issued child…”

LeTellier v. LeTellier, 40 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 4× “LeTellier alternatively alleges that the Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738B, confers jurisdiction upon the Juvenile Court for Davidson County, Tennessee.”

In Re Marriage of Skillen, 1998 MT 43 (Mont. 1998). · cites it 8× “ontrary to the implication created by the majority's citation to Day that the majority's comparison of Indian tribes to territories within the definition of "state" as employed by the UCCJA and the PKPA is sound, our decision in Day did not arbitrarily include Indian tribes…”

Early v. Early, 499 S.E.2d 329 (Ga. 1998). · cites it 10× “Because we conclude that the FFCCSOA does not grant a court of the state that issued a child support order the discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over a child support modification action, we reverse. The parties to this appeal were divorced in Georgia in 1987.”

Ross v. Ross, 805 S.E.2d 7 (Ga. 2017). · cites it 14× “See 28 USC § 1738B. That law establishes a general rule requiring a state to enforce the child support order of another state.”

Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). · cites it 10× “See 28 U.S.C. § 1738B (2007). The FFCCSOA is binding on all states and supersedes any inconsistent provisions of state law.”

In Re the Marriage of Hillstrom, 126 P.3d 315 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Congress enacted the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738B (Full Faith and Credit Act).”

Lilly v. Lilly, 2011 UT App 53 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 7× “8 See generally 28 U.S.C.S. § 1738B (LexisNexis 2010). We will address the full faith and credit issue under both the FFCCSOA and the Full Faith and Credit Clause in turn.”

Keith G. v. Suzanne H., 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1772 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “(28 U.S.C.A. § 1738B.) As we shall explain, the trial court's order enforcing a judgment for child support but granting a setoff is not only rooted in common sense and fairness, it is also consistent with constitutional, statutory, and decisional law.”

Bowman v. Bowman, 82 A.D.3d 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · cites it 9× “Petitioner’s contention that Family Court has jurisdiction to modify the Washington child support order centers around a perceived conflict between the jurisdictional requirements contained in the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (hereinafter UIFSA; see Family Ct Act art…”

Show all 227 citing cases →

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(2)(a)(2) — 1 case

Wine v. Brunty, 38 Va. Cir. 349 (Warren Cir. Ct. 1996).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(3)(a)(l) — 1 case

Wine v. Brunty, 38 Va. Cir. 349 (Warren Cir. Ct. 1996).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(3)(b) — 1 case

Wine v. Brunty, 38 Va. Cir. 349 (Warren Cir. Ct. 1996).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(a) — 25 cases

In Re the Marriage of Hillstrom, 126 P.3d 315 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). “Congress enacted the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738B (Full Faith and Credit Act).”

Gentzel v. Williams, 965 P.2d 855 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998).

Ronny M. v. Nanette H., 303 P.3d 392 (Alaska 2013).

Weekley v. Weekley, 1999 SD 162 (S.D. 1999).

Castro v. Haugh, 225 Cal. App. 4th 963 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(a)(1) — 7 cases

Glover v. Glover, 289 P.3d 12 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).

Lilly v. Lilly, 2011 UT App 53 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “8 See generally 28 U.S.C.S. § 1738B (LexisNexis 2010). We will address the full faith and credit issue under both the FFCCSOA and the Full Faith and Credit Clause in turn.”

Kramer v. Kramer, 698 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

State v. Baldwin, 341 Or. App. 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

In re Henson (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(a)(2) — 2 cases

Glover v. Glover, 289 P.3d 12 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).

Kramer v. Kramer, 698 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(a)(Z) — 1 case

Michael G. Hays v. Shanna Hays, 49 N.E.3d 1030 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(a)(l) — 4 cases

United States v. Clifford Kerley, 416 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2005).

Superior Court of California Ex Rel. Jones v. Ricketts, 836 A.2d 707 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2003).

In re the Marriage of Owen, 108 P.3d 824 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

In re: Est. of Bennie P. Farren, C.A. No. 8714-MA & McGlaughlin v. Farren, C.A. No. 9385-MA, 131 A.3d 817 (Del. Ch. 2016).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(b) — 23 cases

In Re Marriage of Skillen, 1998 MT 43 (Mont. 1998). “ontrary to the implication created by the majority's citation to Day that the majority's comparison of Indian tribes to territories within the definition of "state" as employed by the UCCJA and the PKPA is sound, our decision in Day did not arbitrarily include Indian tribes…”

Support Obligation of Day v. State, 900 P.2d 296 (Mont. 1995).

State Ex Rel. Albemarle Child Support Enf't Agency Ex Rel. George v. Bray, 503 S.E.2d 686 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998).

In Re Marriage of Lurie, 33 Cal. App. 4th 658 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).

Keith G. v. Suzanne H., 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1772 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). “(28 U.S.C.A. § 1738B.) As we shall explain, the trial court's order enforcing a judgment for child support but granting a setoff is not only rooted in common sense and fairness, it is also consistent with constitutional, statutory, and decisional law.”

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(b)(4) — 1 case

Michael G. Hays v. Shanna Hays, 49 N.E.3d 1030 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(b)(8) — 1 case

Mark Daum v. Kimberly Daum, 518 P.3d 718 (Alaska 2022).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(c) — 12 cases

United States v. Bigford, 365 F.3d 859 (10th Cir. 2004).

In Re Marriage of Lurie, 33 Cal. App. 4th 658 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).

Wall v. Stinson, 983 P.2d 736 (Alaska 1999).

State Ex Rel. Child., Youth & Families Dep't v. Andree G., 174 P.3d 531 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007).

Kelly v. Otte, 474 S.E.2d 131 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). “This case presents an issue of first impression as to the effect of the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (28 U.S.C. § 1738B, Pub. L. No. 103-383 ) on the now-repealed North Carolina Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) (N.”

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(c)(1) — 1 case

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(c)(1)(A) — 1 case

Strobel v. Rosier (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(c)(2) — 3 cases

Superior Court of California Ex Rel. Jones v. Ricketts, 836 A.2d 707 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2003).

Gerkin v. Gerkin, 161 Cal. App. 4th 604 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).

Strobel v. Rosier (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(c)(l) — 1 case

Rivera v. Ramsey Cnty., 615 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(d) — 18 cases

Marriage of Basileh v. Alghusain, 890 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

Badeaux v. Davis, 522 S.E.2d 835 (S.C. Ct. App. 1999).

In Re Marriage of Lurie, 33 Cal. App. 4th 658 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).

SCDSS/Child Support Enf't v. Carswell, 597 S.E.2d 859 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(e) — 24 cases

Castro v. Haugh, 225 Cal. App. 4th 963 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).

LeTellier v. LeTellier, 40 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2001). “LeTellier alternatively alleges that the Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738B, confers jurisdiction upon the Juvenile Court for Davidson County, Tennessee.”

Glover v. Glover, 289 P.3d 12 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).

Cavallari v. Martin, 732 A.2d 739 (Vt. 1999).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(e)(1) — 2 cases

Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1738B (2007). The FFCCSOA is binding on all states and supersedes any inconsistent provisions of state law.”

Support Enf't Servs. v. Beasley, 801 So. 2d 515 (La. Ct. App. 2001).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(e)(2) — 5 cases

New Hanover Cnty. Ex Rel. Mannthey v. Kilbourne, 578 S.E.2d 610 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).

State, Dept. of Revenue v. Fleet, 679 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

In Re the Marriage of Carrier, 576 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 1998).

Uhrig v. Madaras, 620 S.E.2d 730 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(e)(2)(A) — 13 cases

Cavallari v. Martin, 732 A.2d 739 (Vt. 1999).

Woodward v. Berkery, 714 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1738B (2007). The FFCCSOA is binding on all states and supersedes any inconsistent provisions of state law.”

Berry v. Coulman, 440 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2019).

Peddar v. Peddar, 683 N.E.2d 1045 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(e)(2)(B) — 6 cases

Mattmuller v. Mattmuller Opinion Corrected 3/12/03, 785 N.E.2d 196 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).

Brickner v. Brickner, 723 N.E.2d 468 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).

Porter v. Porter, 684 A.2d 259 (R.I. 1996).

Marriage of Basileh v. Alghusain, 890 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

State, Dept. of Revenue v. Hylton, 703 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(e)(2)(b) — 1 case

Wilson Cnty. Ex Rel. Egbert v. Egbert, 569 S.E.2d 727 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(e)(l) — 2 cases

Barnes v. Matzner, 2003 SD 42 (S.D. 2003).

Gentzel v. Williams, 965 P.2d 855 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(f) — 6 cases

Twaddell v. Anderson, 523 S.E.2d 710 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999).

Thrift v. Thrift, 760 So. 2d 732 (Miss. 2000).

In Re Marriage of Lurie, 33 Cal. App. 4th 658 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).

Porter v. Porter, 684 A.2d 259 (R.I. 1996).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(f)(1) — 2 cases

Support Enf't Servs. v. Beasley, 801 So. 2d 515 (La. Ct. App. 2001).

SCDSS v. Karen A. Anise (S.C. Ct. App. 2025).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(f)(2) — 1 case

Holdaway-Foster v. Brunell, 2014 NV 51 (Nev. 2014).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(f)(3) — 1 case

Wilson Cnty. Ex Rel. Egbert v. Egbert, 569 S.E.2d 727 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(f)(l) — 2 cases

Badeaux v. Davis, 522 S.E.2d 835 (S.C. Ct. App. 1999).

Superior Court of California Ex Rel. Jones v. Ricketts, 836 A.2d 707 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2003).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(g) — 6 cases

Carlson v. Eassa, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2999 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).

State Ex Rel. Albemarle Child Support Enf't Agency Ex Rel. George v. Bray, 503 S.E.2d 686 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998).

In Re Marriage of Lurie, 33 Cal. App. 4th 658 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).

Kramer v. Kramer, 698 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(g)(2) — 1 case

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(g)(3) — 4 cases

Support Obligation of Day v. State, 900 P.2d 296 (Mont. 1995).

State Ex Rel. Albemarle Child Support Enf't Agency Ex Rel. George v. Bray, 503 S.E.2d 686 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(g)(l) — 1 case

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(h) — 7 cases

In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).

In re Cleopatra Cameron Gift Trust, 931 N.W.2d 244 (S.D. 2019).

Matter of Cameron Trust, 2019 S.D. 35 (S.D. 2019).

In re Marriage of Edelman, 2015 IL App (2d) 140847 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).

Carole Hoke Johns v. Sam N. Johns, Jr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(h)(1) — 1 case

Barbara K. Parks, n/k/a B.M. Kundrat v. Carl Parks (Va. Ct. App. 1998).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(h)(2) — 14 cases

Cavallari v. Martin, 732 A.2d 739 (Vt. 1999).

In Re Marriage of Crosby & Grooms, 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 146 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).

Aguilera v. Alaska Juris F/V, O.N. 569276, 535 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2008).

Tepper v. Hoch, 536 S.E.2d 654 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000).

Dyke v. Scopetti, 2015 VT 53 (Vt. 2015).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(h)(3) — 5 cases

State of Washington v. Bagley, 963 P.2d 498 (Nev. 1998).

New Hanover Cnty. Ex Rel. Mannthey v. Kilbourne, 578 S.E.2d 610 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).

Morrissey v. Morrissey, 713 A.2d 614 (Pa. 1998).

Ember v. Ember, 720 N.E.2d 436 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

Carole Hoke Johns v. Sam N. Johns, Jr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(h)(l) — 1 case

OCS/Pappas v. O'Brien & Bernheim v. Pappas, 2013 VT 11 (Vt. 2013).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(i) — 12 cases

Zaabel v. Konetski, 807 N.E.2d 372 (Ill. 2004).

Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1738B (2007). The FFCCSOA is binding on all states and supersedes any inconsistent provisions of state law.”

Draper v. Burke, 881 N.E.2d 122 (Mass. 2008).

Gentzel v. Williams, 965 P.2d 855 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(i)(2010) — 1 case

Cuevas v. Cuevas, 80 Va. Cir. 381 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2010).

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.