## Facts

- A Michigan court dissolved the parties’ marriage in 2007 and entered a child-support order requiring the father to pay support.
- By 2010, the mother and the two minor children had moved to Florida, and the father lived in California; no party remained in Michigan.
- The mother filed in Florida to domesticate and modify the Michigan child-support order.
- The father agreed Florida could register the order for enforcement but argued Florida could not modify it; he conceded Florida had personal jurisdiction over him.
- The Florida circuit court registered the Michigan order under Florida’s Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA).
- After the mother sought modification, the father moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under UIFSA’s modification provision, which limits Florida’s authority to modify a foreign support order when the petitioner is a Florida resident.
- The mother argued the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA) required Florida to assume modification jurisdiction because Michigan had lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
- The circuit court agreed with the mother and ruled FFCCSOA preempted UIFSA’s nonresident-petitioner requirement, then proceeded toward modification.
- The father petitioned the district court of appeal for a writ of prohibition to stop the circuit court from exercising modification jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Florida UIFSA, a Florida court has subject-matter jurisdiction to modify a foreign child-support order when the petitioner seeking modification is a Florida resident.
2. Whether FFCCSOA preempts Florida UIFSA’s jurisdictional limitation that generally requires the modification petitioner to be a nonresident.
3. Whether a writ of prohibition is available to restrain a trial court from proceeding where subject-matter jurisdiction is absent.

## Decision

- The First District Court of Appeal granted the father’s petition for writ of prohibition.
- The court held the Florida circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to modify the Michigan child-support order under section 88.6111(1), Florida Statutes (2010).
- The court held FFCCSOA did not preempt Florida’s UIFSA nonresident-petitioner requirement.
- The court restrained the circuit court from exercising jurisdiction over the modification proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- Florida UIFSA limits subject-matter jurisdiction to modify an out-of-state child-support order; under section 88.6111(1), Florida generally may modify only when the petitioner is not a Florida resident (absent exceptions not applicable).
- FFCCSOA removes the issuing state’s continuing, exclusive jurisdiction when neither the child nor any party resides in the issuing state, but it does not itself confer subject-matter jurisdiction on a forum state to modify; the forum must independently satisfy its own jurisdictional requirements.
- State UIFSA modification limits are not preempted by FFCCSOA where they operate consistently with FFCCSOA’s framework and do not conflict with federal conditions for modification.
- Prohibition is an appropriate remedy to prevent a trial court from acting without subject-matter jurisdiction when the material facts are undisputed.

## Conclusion

Florida could not modify the Michigan child-support order because Florida UIFSA withheld subject-matter jurisdiction where the modification petitioner was a Florida resident, and FFCCSOA did not override that jurisdictional limitation; prohibition properly barred the trial court from proceeding.


Pulkkinen v. Pulkkinen, 127 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)