## Facts

- A New Mexico dissolution judgment (1990) ordered Mark A. Amezquita to pay Roberta D. Archuleta $600 per month in child support for their three children.
- Archuleta later lived in California with the children and registered the New Mexico support order in Sacramento County.
- Archuleta sought a California modification increasing child support.
- Amezquita, an active-duty U.S. Air Force sergeant, was stationed in California and personally served there.
- Amezquita initially filed a response without counsel, then sought to contest California’s authority to modify, arguing New Mexico retained jurisdiction.
- Evidence showed Amezquita maintained New Mexico ties: New Mexico driver’s license, voting and state tax filing in New Mexico, an interest in his parents’ New Mexico home, and intent to return to New Mexico upon retirement.
- The California trial court concluded it could modify under UIFSA and entered an order (June 2001) increasing support to $974 per month.

## Issues

1. Whether an obligor stationed in California on active military duty, whose domicile remains in another state, “resides” in California for purposes of Family Code § 4962(a)(1) (UIFSA modification jurisdiction).
2. Whether California had jurisdiction under UIFSA to modify the New Mexico child-support order on these facts.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the California order modifying child support and remanded with directions.
- The court held that an active-duty servicemember stationed in California, while maintaining domicile in another state, does not “reside” in California within the meaning of Family Code § 4962.
- Because the statutory residence condition was not satisfied, California lacked UIFSA jurisdiction to modify the New Mexico support order.

## Legal Principles

- Under Family Code § 4962(a)(1), a California tribunal may modify another state’s child-support order only if UIFSA’s specified jurisdictional prerequisites are met, including that the obligor “resides” in California.
- For UIFSA modification jurisdiction, “resides” requires more than temporary physical presence attributable to military orders; continued domicile and intent to return to another state can defeat a finding of California residence.
- Personal service and physical presence in California, standing alone, are insufficient to confer UIFSA modification authority when the statute’s residence requirement is unmet.
- UIFSA’s modification scheme limits when a nonissuing state may alter an existing order, preserving predictable jurisdictional allocation among states.

## Conclusion

California lacked jurisdiction under UIFSA to modify the New Mexico child-support order because the obligor’s active-duty stationing in California did not constitute statutory “residence” where his domicile remained in New Mexico, requiring reversal of the increased-support order.


In re Marriage of Amezquita & Archuleta, 101 Cal. App. 4th 1415, 124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 887 (Ct. App. 2002)