## Facts

- A California superior court issued a 2008 child support order requiring the father to pay the mother $700 per month for their son.
- The mother and child moved to Texas in 2007.
- Around 2011, the father moved from California to Nevada.
- In January 2013, the father sought to modify (reduce) child support in the original California proceeding based on reduced income.
- The mother objected that California was not the proper forum because neither parent nor the child lived in California.
- The county child support agency intervened and argued the court lacked jurisdiction to modify under Family Code section 4909 (UIFSA) because no party or child resided in California and there was no written consent for California to retain jurisdiction.
- The trial court rejected the jurisdictional objection, reasoning it retained jurisdiction as the issuing court until another state assumed jurisdiction, and reduced support (to $508 per month).
- The agency appealed as the only appearing party on appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether a California court has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under Family Code section 4909 to modify its child support order when the obligor, obligee, and child all reside outside California and no written consents were filed in the issuing tribunal.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the modification order.
- The court held the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction because California lacked continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the support order under Family Code section 4909.
- The case was remanded with directions to deny the modification request for lack of jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Under Family Code section 4909 (UIFSA), an issuing California tribunal has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order only if (1) the obligor, obligee, or child resides in California, or (2) all parties file written consents in the issuing tribunal for California to retain modification jurisdiction.
- When neither parent nor the child resides in the issuing state and no written consent exists, the issuing state’s authority to modify terminates; a later modification entered despite those facts is jurisdictionally invalid.
- UIFSA’s structure is designed to ensure only one state at a time has authority to modify a child support order, preventing competing modification orders.
- A trial court may not retain modification jurisdiction based on the fact it issued the original order or on the absence of a currently exercising alternative forum; the statutory conditions control.
- The appropriate procedure is to register the existing order in the state with modification jurisdiction (commonly the child’s state of residence) and seek modification there, consistent with UIFSA’s interstate rules.

## Conclusion

Because the parents and child all lived outside California when the father sought modification and no written consents were filed for California to retain authority, California lacked continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under Family Code section 4909 to modify the child support order, requiring reversal and denial of the modification request.


In re Marriage of Haugh, 225 Cal. App. 4th 963 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)