## Facts

- A married couple lived in Massachusetts for about ten years and had two children, then moved to New Mexico and Oregon.
- An Oregon court entered a 1997 divorce judgment awarding shared legal custody and ordering the husband to pay $750 per month in child support; the judgment did not address college expenses.
- Shortly after the divorce, the wife and children moved to Massachusetts and the husband moved to Idaho; no party continued to live in Oregon.
- The wife filed in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court to modify the Oregon child-support order (seeking contribution to college expenses) and to enforce unpaid support.
- The husband appeared and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Massachusetts’ UIFSA barred modification because the wife, as petitioner, was a Massachusetts resident.
- The Probate and Family Court denied dismissal and modified support by ordering reimbursement for a share of past college expenses and contribution to future college costs, and addressed arrears.

## Issues

1. Whether a Massachusetts court had subject-matter jurisdiction to modify an Oregon child-support order when the petitioner resided in Massachusetts, given UIFSA language requiring a “nonresident” petitioner.
2. Whether the federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738B, preempts any inconsistent UIFSA restriction that would bar such modification.
3. Whether Massachusetts had personal jurisdiction over the nonresident obligor sufficient to support modification of the foreign order.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the modification and enforcement orders.
- FFCCSOA controlled and preempted any state-law UIFSA limitation that would prevent Massachusetts from modifying the order under these circumstances.
- Because no party or child resided in Oregon, Oregon lacked continuing, exclusive jurisdiction; Massachusetts, having personal jurisdiction over the husband, could modify the support order.
- The husband’s argument that the wife was required to seek modification in Idaho was rejected where Massachusetts could exercise jurisdiction and the federal scheme did not impose that requirement.

## Legal Principles

- Under FFCCSOA, an issuing state retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a child-support order only while the child or any contestant resides in that state, absent written consent transferring jurisdiction.
- When the issuing state no longer has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, another state with jurisdiction over the parties may modify the support order consistent with FFCCSOA.
- Federal law under FFCCSOA preempts conflicting state enactments of UIFSA that impose additional jurisdictional barriers to modification not found in the federal statute.
- A forum state may modify a foreign support order only if it can constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over the obligor.

## Conclusion

Massachusetts courts could modify an Oregon child-support order to require contributions toward college expenses and address arrears after all parties left Oregon, because FFCCSOA authorized modification by a state with personal jurisdiction over the obligor and displaced any contrary UIFSA nonresident-petitioner restriction.


Draper v. Burke, 450 Mass. 676 (2008)