Opinion ID: 2337015
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction and Loss of Jurisdiction of the Issuing State

Text: The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-2201, et seq., controls the establishment, enforcement, or modification of support orders across state lines. UIFSA is intended to recognize that only one valid support order may be effective at any one time. Unif. Interstate Family Support Act, U.L.A. (1996) (prefatory notes). Key to promoting UIFSA's intent is the concept of continuing exclusive jurisdiction. A state that issues a support order has continuing exclusive jurisdiction over that order. No other state may modify that order as long as the issuing state has continuing exclusive jurisdiction. The issuing state may lose continuing exclusive jurisdiction, however. In this case, the District of Columbia lost continuing exclusive jurisdiction when Mr. LeTellier, Ms. LeTellier, and Nicholas were no longer residents of that state. [1] Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-2205(a)(1). The District of Columbia no longer ha[d] an appropriate nexus with the parties or the child to justify exercise of jurisdiction to modify. Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-2205 cmt. [2]