Summary
The Georgia Supreme Court held that a Georgia court lacked jurisdiction under UIFSA and the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act to modify a Connecticut child support order because Connecticut retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. The court rejected reliance on the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, concluding that federal and Georgia law preempted modification through that mechanism. The trial court’s judgment was reversed, while enforcement of the foreign order remained generally available.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a Georgia tribunal had subject-matter jurisdiction under UIFSA and the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act to modify the Connecticut child-support order while Husband continued to reside in Connecticut and had not consented to Georgia jurisdiction.
- Whether the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law independently authorized the Georgia court to modify the Connecticut child-support order.
Holdings
- A Georgia tribunal may not modify another state's child-support order when the issuing state retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, unless one of the statutory circumstances divesting that jurisdiction is satisfied. Because Husband remained a Connecticut resident and no party provided written consent to Georgia jurisdiction, Connecticut retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
- The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law does not authorize a Georgia court to modify a foreign child-support order when federal law and UIFSA reserve continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to the issuing state; the UEFJL is preempted to that extent.
Key quotations
“If none of the above factual circumstances exist, then a Georgia tribunal cannot modify a foreign state’s child support order.” (43)
“Therefore, the trial court erred when it held it had jurisdiction to modify the parties’ child support order.” (43)
“That law is necessarily preempted by 28 USC § 1738B as it pertains to her request for the Georgia court to modify the parties’ Connecticut child support order.” (44)
Factual background
The parties were divorced in Connecticut on January 25, 2010, and Husband was ordered to pay $279 per week in child support. On June 16, 2010, the Connecticut court reduced the obligation to $100 per week to facilitate Wife's move to Georgia with the children. Husband continued to reside in Connecticut, while Wife and the children lived in Coweta County. Wife later sought in Georgia to domesticate and modify the Connecticut support order, and Husband was personally served while visiting the children in Georgia.
Procedural history
The parties were divorced in Connecticut, which later reduced Husband's child-support obligation. After Wife and the children moved to Georgia, Wife filed an action in Coweta County to domesticate and modify the Connecticut decree and modification order. The Georgia trial court denied Husband's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, granted a certificate of immediate review, and the Supreme Court of Georgia granted interlocutory review.
Remand instructions
The trial court's judgment denying the motion to dismiss was reversed. If Wife continues to pursue modification, she must do so through proceedings in the Connecticut court.