Opinion ID: 2307522
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Registration of the Minnesota 1995 Arrearages Order in Delaware

Text: Mr. Linn contends that the Minnesota 1995 Arrearages Order is not properly before the Delaware Family Court because the California Court did not have subject matter nor personal jurisdiction over him so as to have had the authority to cause the order to be registered in Delaware for enforcement under RURESA (1968). On behalf of Ms. Toman, the Superior Court of California, in December 1996, sent a request to register a foreign support order to the Delaware Family Court. [56] Mr. Linn contends that because California had not enacted the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (1992) when it forwarded the registration request to Delaware and continued to enforce child support under the prior Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of 1968, California lacked jurisdiction to request registration and enforcement of the Minnesota 1995 Arrearages Order in Delaware. This claim is without merit. UIFSA (1992) was in effect in Delaware when the Minnesota 1995 Arrearages Order forwarded from California was received in Delaware in January 1997. Section 207 of UIFSA (1992) governs the reconciliation of the responding state's proceedings with orders of other states. It provides the rules that apply if a proceeding is brought for enforcement and one or more child support orders have been issued and states [i]f only one tribunal has issued a child support order, the order of that tribunal must be recognized. [57] The comment states that the Reconciliation with Orders of Other States section addresses the problem of switching from URESA and RURESA (1968) to UIFSA (1992) and is designed to span the gulf between the one-order system and the multiple order system in place under RURESA. [58] Under section 207 of UIFSA (1992) if only one order has been issued, it will be treated as if it had been issued under UIFSA if it was issued under a statute consistent with the principles of UIFSA. [59] Section 301 of UIFSA (1992) lists the proceedings authorized under the Act and includes enforcement of a support order and income-withholding order of another state without registration pursuant to Article 5 [60] and registration of an order for ... child support of another state for enforcement pursuant to Article 6. [61] Under UIFSA, the role of the initiating tribunal consists merely of the ministerial function of forwarding the documents. [62] As a responding tribunal, the Delaware Family Court is required to apply Delaware procedural and substantive law to the enforcement action unless otherwise provided by the Act. [63] Section 305 of UIFSA (1992) authorizes the responding tribunal to enforce a support order and states: (a) When a responding tribunal of this State receives a [petition] or comparable pleading from an initiating tribunal or directly pursuant to Section 301(c) (Proceedings Under this [Act]), it shall cause the [petition] or pleading to be filed and notify the [petitioner] by first class mail where and when it was filed. [64] Section 101(7) of UIFSA (1992) defines initiating state as a state in which a proceeding under this [Act] or a law substantially similar to this [Act], the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, or the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act is filed for forwarding to a responding state. [65] Responding state is defined as a state to which a proceeding is forwarded under this [Act] or a law substantially similar to this [Act], the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, or the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. [66] The Delaware Family Court, therefore, properly applied UIFSA (1992) to the proceedings before it because Delaware had adopted UIFSA (1992) before the registration was received and the support order forwarded for registration from California under the RURESA was recognized and enforced by the responding state under UIFSA. [67]