Opinion ID: 1119597
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: 1996 Alaska Court Order Clarifying the 1989 Order

Text: CSED nevertheless enforced the Oregon child support order administratively. Wall, through counsel, objected to the administrative enforcement. In response to Wall's objection, CSED, in 1996, requested that the superior court clarify its 1989 support and custody order, which had declared the Oregon judgment unenforceable under the PKPA as to the subject of custody. Although CSED conceded that the Oregon custody order was unenforceable under the PKPA as to the subject of custody, it argued that the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA) [2] required enforcement of the Oregon judgment's child support provisions. The superior court agreed with CSED that jurisdiction for child custody and jurisdiction for child support are distinct. It concluded that, although Oregon lacked jurisdiction under the PKPA to make a child custody determinationthe precise issue previously litigated in the 1988 Alaska proceedingOregon did have jurisdiction under the FFCCSOA to enter a support order. The court thus found the Oregon support order enforceable. Wall appeals.