This edition of Pundit marks the start of the new Interstate Corner, an article within each edition of Pundit, which will draw from questions and answers posted to the Interstate Google Group forum.  This first edition focuses on the often confusing issues of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).  This edition's Q&A draws heavily from Linda Bess (Enforcement Officer, Calhoun County) and Tony McDowell (Staff Attorney, Genesee County).

Q:

Judgment of Divorce (JOD) from Texas (TX).  Dad is the custodial parent (CP) and moves to Michigan (MI) with the child. Mom is the noncustodial parent (NCP), and she remains in TX.  TX JOD sets support at $0 for each party. Mom registers custody/parenting time in Michigan under the UCCJEA and files a motion seeking custody under a DC case. Both parties hire attorneys and a full custody hearing is held.

At the MI hearing, mom is granted custody and dad is granted parenting time. Dad is also ordered to pay child support.  Child support is put on MiCSES for Dad to pay Mom under the new custody order. In the meantime, Dad files an appeal in MI and the child remains in his custody until the appeal is heard by the Judge. Months later, the appeal is heard and Dad wins his appeal, keeping custody of the minor child. All child support charges and arrears are removed from MiCSES at that time. 

Dad now comes to the FOC and files a motion seeking child support from mom under the DC case. 

Can dad request a support review under the DC case or does the FOC have to send a referral to the TX Child Support Agency, asking the agency to review the support under a UF docket? 

A:

It is important to note that although this is filed as a DC case, case suffixes are not the end all, be all as to case type Although the DC case was filed in MI under UCCJEA, the UCCJEA cannot address child support. The UCCJEA registers the “child-custody determination” that is statutorily defined by MCL 722.1102(c). That definition states that “Child-custody determination does not include an order relating to child support or other monetary obligation of an individual.” Child support is governed by UIFSA. The support provision is not registered until the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) registration requirements are met (notice and statutory required documents sent by court (under MCR 3.214(C) assigned to FOC). Under UIFSA, Michigan had no basis for entering a child support order as one already existed. 

While we may issue child custody or parenting time provisions, unless all the parties live here or a nonmoving party lives here, and the order is registered, we cannot modify the support order or set the amount of support. Because Michigan did not have jurisdiction to enter the support order under UIFSA in the DC case, that support order was not valid and did not give Michigan CEJ. Therefore, so long as someone is still living in Texas, then Texas would retain CEJ for modification of support.

Based on the facts of this case, I do not think consent of the parties comes into play, because the parties did not really consent to a state taking jurisdiction over support and they didn’t consent to an order, instead it sounds like it was hotly contested. A nonresident NCP who is subject to our jurisdiction for UCCJEA purposes, is not probably subject to our jurisdiction for support or other legal purposes. MCL 722.1109. Submitting to personal jurisdiction in Michigan is not the same as agreeing to Michigan taking over CEJ to modify support.

If he wants his support order modified, I would think that the valid support order is the one to have modified, which would mean asking TX to modify their order. It seems to me that if you modify the MI order you are modifying an order that was improperly entered to begin with.

If the facts were slightly different, the decision might be a little different.  If we have a case where there is a MI order, the CP is in AL, and the NCP is in MI.  NCP went to AL to get a custody and parenting time order, which the parties consented to.  AL decided to address child support at the same time and the parties consented to that provision as well.  Now, because the parties consented to the AL order, if that consent was also recorded in MI, then the parties could agree to AL taking over jurisdiction per MCL 552.1205(2)(a).  Of course, that didn’t happen, but it shows how one slight step in a different direction could make a big difference.

A suggestion for offices facing a pending UCCJEA action is to let the attorney or the court know that the FOC office would be happy to address the support issues when they come up.  This can be helpful for attorney if they have one less thing to worry about in court.  The FOC office has also appeared to help the court when these types of cases come up.  We have had some luck with private attorneys by making it easier for them to have the FOC address support than it is for them to try and litigate it and possibly have an invalid order.  Once they see the process is less complicated, they tend to stop touching support in UCCJEA matters.  While these issues still exist, progress with attorneys within our local bar can make a difference.