(a) A tribunal of the District that has issued a child-support order consistent with the law of the District 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, the District is the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued; or
(2) Even if the District 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 the District may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order.
(b) A tribunal of the District that has issued a child-support order consistent with the law of the District may 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 the District 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 that act which modifies a child-support order of a tribunal of the District, tribunals of the District shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.
(d) A tribunal of the District 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.
CREDIT(S)
(Feb. 9, 1996, D.C. Law 11-81, § 205, 42 DCR 6748; July 24, 1998, D.C. Law 12-131, § 2(b), 45 DCR 2924; June 22, 2006, D.C. Law 16-137, § 2(b)(2)(C), 53 DCR 3634.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Codifications
1981 Ed., § 30-342.5.
Effect of Amendments
D.C. Law 16-137 rewrote section, which had read as follows:
Ҥ 46-302.05. Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
“(a) A tribunal of the District issuing a support order consistent with the law of the District has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a child support order:
“(1) As long as the District remains the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued; or
“(2) Until all of the parties who are individuals have filed written consent with the tribunal of the District for a tribunal of another state to modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
“(b) A tribunal of the District issuing a child support order consistent with the law of the District may not exercise its continuing jurisdiction to modify the order if the order has been modified by a tribunal of another state pursuant to a law substantially similar to this chapter.
“(c) If a child support order of the District is modified by a tribunal of another state pursuant to a law substantially similar to this chapter, a tribunal of the District loses its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction with regard to prospective enforcement of the order issued in the District, and may only:
“(1) Enforce the order that was modified as to amounts accruing before the modification;
“(2) Enforce nonmodifiable aspects of that order; and
“(3) Provide other appropriate relief for violations of that order which occurred before the effective date of the modification.
“(d) A tribunal of the District shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of a tribunal of another state which has issued a child support order pursuant to a law substantially similar to this chapter.
“(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.
“(f) A tribunal of the District issuing a support order consistent with the law of the District has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a spousal support order throughout the existence of the support obligation. A tribunal of the District may not modify a spousal support order issued by a tribunal of another state having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over that order under the law of that state.”
Temporary Amendments of Section
For temporary (225 day) amendment of section, see § 2(b) of Uniform Interstate Family Support Temporary Amendment Act of 1998 (D.C. Law 12-94, April 29, 1998, law notification 45 DCR 2785).
Emergency Act Amendments
For temporary amendment of section, see § 2(b) of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Emergency Amendment Act of 1997 (D.C. Act 12-225, December 23, 1997, 45 DCR 151).
For temporary amendment of section, see § 2(b) of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 1998 (D.C. Act 12-310, March 20, 1998, 45 DCR 1950).
Legislative History of Laws
For legislative history of D.C. Law 11-81, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 46-301.01.
For legislative history of D.C. Law 12-131, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 46-301.01.
For Law 16-137, see notes following § 46-301.01.
Effective Dates
Applicability: Section 3 of D.C. Law 16-137 provides: “This act shall apply as of April 1, 2007.”
Uniform Law
This section is based upon § 205 of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (2001 Act). See Volume 9, Part IB Uniform Laws Annotated, Master Edition, or ULA Database on Westlaw.
