Source: http://fl.bna.com/fl/19990525/97278.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:30:36+00:00

Document:
Marilyn Cavallari, Pro Se, Cambridge, New York, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Adele V. Pastor of Corsones & Corsones, Rutland, for Defendant-Appellant.
PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.
presented to the family  court today.
concerning a continuing matter that has become a purely internal affair."
appealed to the family court.
they a final adjudication of the rights and duties of parent and child.
rights were divested by virtue of the 1973 order.
Id. at 57-58, 312 A.2d at 925 (citations omitted).  See also Forte v.
obligations requires  that New York law govern this case.
the forum state, the new state of residency of the parties.  See Finney  v.
(Colo. Ct. App.  1991); Hodges v. Hodges, 415 N.W.2d 62, 68 (Minn. Ct. App.
that Vermont courts may not take equivalent action.
flowing from the continued relationship of parent and child."  Elkind v.
Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (RURESA), 15  V.S.A.
in different counties of the same state.  See Bushway v. Riendeau, 137 Vt.
impediment to modifying  the duration of the support order at issue here.
present for the period during which support is sought."  15 V.S.A. � 395.
Delaware and Delaware law terminates child support at eighteen);  Pieper v.
from another state if the parties to that order now live in Vermont.
not be modified under the law  of the issuing state."  15B V.S.A. � 611(c).
(N.C. Ct. App. 1997); In re Marriage of Cooney, 946 P.2d 305, 307 (Ore. Ct.
of majority, or terminates secondary education,  whichever is later).
the enactment of UIFSA cannot affect the outcome of this case.  See Deltoro v.
savings clause specifically appended to legislation enacting UIFSA).
v. Silva, 685 A.2d 1239, 1241  (N.H. 1996).
support order  whether or not its duration was explicit.
consent . . . .
28 U.S.C. � 1738B(e).  Here the prerequisites to modification are present.
(so applying � 1738B(e) in similar circumstances).
the modification sought in this case.
enactment, there are only a few  decisions interpreting its provisions.
divorce  decree and their children all moved to North Carolina.
order prospectively to strike the clause.  See id. at 136.
pay post-majority child support and must modify the inconsistent order.
residency" and argues the decision is based on "a mere fortuitous event,"
that is, mother's presence in Vermont on the day she was served.
the magistrate was whether mother and the child  were residents of Vermont.
scholarship based on residency in Vermont.
appeal, we deny his motion as moot.
until after the  child graduated from high school.
pay support.  Thus, the Burke situation is not present here.
15B V.S.A. � 613 cmt. (Supp. 1999).
Welsher, 491 S.E.2d at 664-65; Cowan v. Moreno, 903 S.W.2d 119, 121  (Tex.
retrospective application than the one we would have to apply in this case.
determination of residency when the Petition to Modify was filed.
sufficient showing to justify modification has been made.
contestant."  28 U.S.C. � 1738B(e)(2)(A).
child support until age twenty-one.

References: V. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

v. 
 v.