## Facts

- Claire Philipp and Robert Stahl divorced in Georgia in 1993; the divorce judgment incorporated an arbitration agreement governing custody, support, and related matters.
- Claire was designated the primary custodial parent of their two children; Robert was required to pay $500 per month per child, cover private school tuition and reasonable educational costs, maintain health insurance, and share unreimbursed medical expenses equally.
- The Georgia judgment did not address college expenses.
- After the divorce, Claire relocated with the children to New Jersey; a Georgia court denied Robert’s request to enjoin the move.
- New Jersey later entered post-divorce orders addressing: (1) visitation and allocation of travel costs; (2) arrears and the form of payment (a single unallocated $1,000 monthly payment); and (3) a later custody and insurance adjustment for one child.
- Claire then sought an order in New Jersey requiring Robert to contribute to their daughter’s Princeton University college expenses and related relief.

## Issues

1. Under UIFSA, did New Jersey obtain jurisdiction to modify the Georgia child support order based on New Jersey post-divorce orders addressing visitation, travel costs, payment mechanics, and custody/insurance matters?
2. If New Jersey lacked modification jurisdiction, could it nonetheless impose a new obligation requiring the father to contribute to the child’s college expenses?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the Family Part’s denial of relief.
- The Court held that the New Jersey orders were not UIFSA “modifications” of the Georgia support order.
- Georgia, as the issuing state, retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over support.
- Because a college-expense obligation would constitute a substantive support modification, New Jersey lacked jurisdiction to impose it.

## Legal Principles

- Under UIFSA, the issuing state retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order while the obligor, obligee, or child remains a resident of that state, absent statutory conditions for transfer.
- “Modification” under UIFSA requires a substantive change to the underlying support obligation; orders that primarily enforce, administer, or implement an existing support decree (e.g., payment mechanics, visitation logistics, travel cost allocation) do not constitute modification.
- A new category of financial responsibility for a child (including college expenses where not previously ordered) is a substantive support obligation and, if imposed by another state, is a modification governed by UIFSA’s jurisdictional limits.
- UIFSA’s jurisdictional scheme is designed to prevent competing support orders from different states.

## Conclusion

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that New Jersey’s post-divorce orders did not modify the Georgia support judgment under UIFSA; therefore Georgia retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, and New Jersey could not require the father to pay the child’s college expenses.


Philipp v. Stahl, 172 N.J. 293, 798 A.2d 83 (N.J. 2002)