Union Calendar No. 117
103D CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 454
[Report No. 103–206]
A BILL
To provide that a State court may not modify an
order of another State court requiring the pay-
ment of child support unless the recipient of
child support payments resides in the State in
which the modification is sought, or consents to
seeking the modification in such other State
court.
AUGUST 2, 1993
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and
ordered to be printed
IB
Union Calendar No. 117
103D CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 454
[Report No. 103–206]
To provide that a State court may not modify an order of another State
court requiring the payment of child support unless the recipient of
child support payments resides in the State in which the modification
is sought, or consents to seeking the modification in such other State
court.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 6, 1993
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary
AUGUST 2, 1993
Additional sponsors: Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. MEEHAN, and Mr. KLECZKA
AUGUST 2, 1993
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on January 6, 1993]
A BILL
To provide that a State court may not modify an order
of another State court requiring the payment of child
support unless the recipient of child support payments
resides in the State in which the modification is sought,
or consents to seeking the modification in such other
State court.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Full Faith and Credit
for Child Support Orders Act’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) there is a large and growing number of child
support cases annually involving disputes between
parents who reside in different States;
(2) the laws by which the courts of these jurisdic-
tions determine their authority to establish child sup-
port orders are not uniform;
(3) those laws, along with the limits imposed by
the Federal system on the authority of each State to
take certain actions outside its own boundaries—
(A) encourage noncustodial parents to relo-
cate outside the States where their children and
the custodial parents reside to avoid the jurisdic-
tion of the courts of such States, resulting in an
increase in the amount of interstate travel and
communication required to establish and collect
on child support orders and a burden on custo-
dial parents that is expensive, time consuming,
and disruptive of occupations and commercial
activity;
(B) contribute to the pressing problem of
relatively low levels of child support payments in
interstate cases and to inequities in child sup-
port payments levels which are based solely on
the non custodial parent’s choice of residence;
(C) encourage a disregard of court orders
resulting in massive arrearages nationwide;
(D) allow noncustodial parents to avoid the
payment of regularly scheduled child support
payments for extensive periods of time, resulting
in substantial hardship for the children for
whom support is due and for their custodians;
and
(E) lead to the excessive relitigation of cases
and to the establishment of conflicting orders by
the courts of various jurisdictions, resulting in
confusion, waste of judicial resources, disrespect
for the courts, and a diminution of public con-
fidence in the rule of law; and
(4) among the results of these conditions is the
failure of the courts of the States to give full faith and
credit to the judicial proceedings of the other States,
the deprivation of rights of liberty and property with-
out due process of law, burdens on commerce among
the States, and harm to the welfare of children and
their parents and other custodians.
(b) STATEMENT OF POLICY.—For the reasons set forth
in subsection (a), it is necessary to establish national stand-
ards under which the courts of different States will deter-
mine their jurisdiction to issue a child support order and
the effect to be given by each State to child support orders
issued by the courts of other States.
(c) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are to—
(1) facilitate the enforcement of child support or-
ders among the States;
(2) discourage continuing interstate controversies
over child support in the interest of greater financial
stability and secure family relationships for the child;
and
(3) avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict
among State courts in the establishment of child sup-
port orders.
SEC. 3. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO CHILD SUPPORT
ORDERS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 115 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1738A
the following new section:
‘‘§ 1738B. Full faith and credit given to child support
orders
‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—The appropriate authorities of
each State shall enforce according to its terms, and shall
not modify except as provided in subsection (e), any child
support order made consistently with the provisions of this
section by a court of another State.
‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the
term—
‘‘(1) ‘child’ means any person under 18 years of
age, and includes an individual 18 or more years of
age for whom a child support order has been issued
pursuant to the laws of a State;
‘‘(2) ‘child’s State’ means the State in which a
child currently resides;
‘‘(3) ‘child support order’ means a judgment, de-
cree, or order of a court requiring the payment of
money, or the provision of a benefit, including health
insurance, whether in periodic amounts or lump sum,
for the support of a child and includes permanent
and temporary orders, initial orders and modifica-
tions, ongoing support, reimbursements, and arrear-
ages;
‘‘(4) ‘child support’ means a payment of money
or provision of a benefit described in paragraph (3)
for the support of a child;
‘‘(5) ‘contestant’ means a person, including a
parent, who claims a right to receive child support or
is under a child support order, and the term ‘contest-
ant’ includes States and political subdivisions to
whom the right to obtain child support has been as-
signed;
‘‘(6) ‘court’ means a court or administrative
agency of a State which is authorized by State law
to establish the amount of child support payable by
a contestant or modify the amount of child support
payable by a contestant;
‘‘(7) ‘modification’ and ‘modify’ refer to a
change in a child support order which affects the
amount, scope, or duration of such order and modi-
fies, replaces, supersedes, or otherwise is made subse-
quent to such child support order, whether or not
made by the same court as such child support order;
and
‘‘(8) ‘State’ means a State of the United States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the territories and possessions of the
United States, and Indian country as defined in sec-
tion 1151 of title 18.
‘‘(c) REQUIREMENTS OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS.—
A child support order made by a court of a State is consist-
ent with the provisions of this section only if—
‘‘(1) such court, pursuant to the laws of the State
in which such court is located, had jurisdiction to
hear the matter and enter such an order and had per-
sonal jurisdiction over the contestants; and
‘‘(2) reasonable notice and opportunity to be
heard was given to the contestants.
‘‘(d) CONTINUING JURISDICTION.—A court of a State
which has made a child support order consistently with the
provisions of this section has continuing, exclusive jurisdic-
tion of that order when such State is the child’s State or
the residence of any individual who is a contestant unless
another State, acting in accordance with subsection (e), has
modified that order.
‘‘(e) AUTHORITY TO MODIFY ORDERS.—A court of a
State may modify a child support order with respect to a
child that is made by a court of another State, if—
‘‘(1) it has jurisdiction to make such a child sup-
port order; and
‘‘(2) the court of the other State no longer has
continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the child support
order because such State no longer is the child’s State
or the residence of any individual who is a contest-
ant, or each contestant has filed written consent for
the State to modify the order and assume continuing,
exclusive jurisdiction of such order.
‘‘(f) ENFORCEMENT OF PRIOR ORDERS.—A court of
a State which no longer has continuing, exclusive jurisdic-
tion of a child support order may enforce such order with
respect to nonmodifiable obligations, and with respect to
unsatisfied obligations which accrued before the date on
which a modification of such order is made under sub-
section (e).’’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 1738A the following:
‘‘1738B. Full faith and credit given to child support orders.’’.
SEC. 4. DEFINITION.
As used in section 2, the term ‘‘State’’ has the meaning
given that term in section 1738B(b) of title 28, United
States Code, as added by section 3 of this Act.