Can a costa rican residing in costa rica file a child support lawsuit in Florida were the father lives.
Both mother and child reside in costa rica

I don't see why not.

One doesn't have to be a Florida resident or a U.S. citizen to file lawsuits in Florida state courts.

However, if the mother and child reside in Cost Rica, then Costa Rica would have jurisdiction. I'm not sure a Florida court would accept the case.

I've been unable to find any information to support this law regarding a noncitizen having jurisdiction in Florida to file a child support claim. Can u help me find the fla stature to support this? Thanks cdm

There is no law barring a non US citizen from filing a lawsuit in a US court. So we can't cite a statute that doesn't exist.

But there are laws that cover what courts have jurisdiction in a child support/custody cases. Those laws give jurisdiction to the place of residence of the child. So, if the child is a resident of Costa Rica, a suit for support would have to be filed there. The only exception would be if the child was born in Florida and a support case was started while the child was a resident of Florida. In that case, Florida would retain jurisdiction, even if the child moves away.

Once the Costa Rican court rules on support, then you can file with the Florida support collection agency to see if they will enforce the Costa Rican support award.

Thanks,scott The child never lived in Florida or any other place in the U.S.A but I must add he is a legal citizen of USA.does that change things?

First, if you have follow-up questions or info, please use the Answer options not the comments.

No, the child being a US citizen or even holding dual citizenship would not have a bearing. In my opinion the Florida courts could and would refuse to hear the case because the child resides outside their jurisdiction.

... In my opinion the Florida courts could and would refuse to hear the case because the child resides outside their jurisdiction.

I am unaware of any statute or other authority which would support a dismissal of such a suit in a U.S. state court because the child (or the custodial parent) doesn't reside in that state. And there is a very good practical reason for this: she could sue him in C.R. but if the father has never been in C.R. it is questionable whether the C.R. courts would have jurisdiction over him. And even if they thought they did, I question whether an American CS agency or court would recognize the C.R. judgment. So she isn't going to be able to collect it.

... The child never lived in florida or anyother place in the U.S.A but i must add he is a legal citizen of USA. ...

Oh really? How do you figure?

I am unaware of any statute or other authority which would support a dismissal of such a suit in a U.S. state court because the child (or the custodial parent) doesn't reside in that state.

From: Jurisdiction for Child Custody and Support - Frequently Asked Questions> (http://www.courts.alaska.gov/jurisdictionfaq.htm)
The general rule in a case involving children is that only the "home state" of the child has the power to make decisions. "Home state" generally means the state where the child has lawfully resided during the six months preceding the filing of the court case.

I found other references that state laws need to be consistent with the FFCCSOA which defines the home state in the same way.

I think its pretty clear from my research that a US state court would not have jurisdiction unless the child resides within its jurisdiction or the case was filed when the child was in the jurisdiction.

The FFCCSOA also provides for dealing with orders from foreign courts. While I agree it will be a long shot to collect on an order issued by a CR court I think it's the only option the OP has.

Just to add to the debate:

Costa Rica Becomes A Foreign Reciprocating Country

Child Support Report XXVII, No. 3, 20050301 (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2005/csr/csr0503.html)


HCCH | Full text (http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=131)

From: Jurisdiction for Child Custody and Support - Frequently Asked Questions> (http://www.courts.alaska.gov/jurisdictionfaq.htm)
The general rule in a case involving children is that only the "home state" of the child has the power to make decisions. "Home state" generally means the state where the child has lawfully resided during the six months preceding the filing of the court case. ...
Ah, cute. Link to the court web-site from my "home state". :p


...
I found other references that state laws need to be consistent with the FFCCSOA which defines the home state in the same way.

I think its pretty clear from my research that a US state court would not have jurisdiction unless the child resides within its jurisdiction or the case was filed when the child was in the jurisdiction.

The FFCCSOA also provides for dealing with orders from foreign courts. While I agree it will be a long shot to collect on an order issued by a CR court I think its the only option the OP has.

FFCCSOA is the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738(B) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001738---B000-.html). It pertains to support orders issued by U.S. states.

“'State' means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the territories and possessions of the United States, and Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18)."Sorry, but I see nothing in there having to do with foreign countries such as Costa Rica.

Now, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act is interesting. It's possible C.R. might be considered a "state" under the provisions of that act if it "has enacted a law or established procedures for issuance and enforcement of support orders that are substantially similar to the procedures under this chapter or under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act or the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act".

But if, arguendo, a U.S. court would consider C.R. to be such a "state" (so as to cause the U.S. state court to "back off" and decline jurisdiction) , Costa Rica very well might not have personal jurisdiction over the father. The section of the UIFSA I am reading says:

" Bases for jurisdiction over nonresident.
In a proceeding to establish, enforce, or modify a support order or to determine parentage, a tribunal of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident individual or the individual's guardian or conservator if
(1) the individual is personally served with a citation, summons, or notice within this state;
(2) the individual submits to the jurisdiction of this state by consent, by entering a general appearance, or by filing a responsive document having the effect of waiving any contest to personal jurisdiction;
(3) the individual resided with the child in this state;
(4) the individual resided in this state and provided prenatal expenses or support for the child;
(5) the child resides in this state as a result of the acts or directives of the individual;
(6) the individual engaged in sexual intercourse in this state and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse;
(7) the individual acknowledged parentage in a writing deposited with the Bureau of Vital Statistics under AS 25.20.050 ; or
(8) there is another basis consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States for the exercise of personal jurisdiction."
So it's conceivable that a father sued for CS in P.R. could get the case dismissed, if in fact he was never in that country.

Ah, cute. Link to the court web-site from my "home state". :p


Ya know I never even put the two together.

But I think you are missing the point here and going at this from the back end. Before a court can hear a case, they have to have jurisdiction over the matter. So unless the child is a legal resident of the state then that state's courts do not have jurisdiction. It doesn't matter where the child resides as long as its not within the jurisdiction. So even if the FL court agreed to hear the case, the father should be able to get it thrown out on those grounds.

And the fact that CS has a reciprocal agreement with the US (thanks Califdad) makes it even more clear that the support case has to be filed there.

And while FFCCSOA does primarily deal with interstate support orders, it also deals with where the orders should originate and even has provisions dealing with international issues.

Ah, cute. Link to the court web-site from my "home state". :p



FFCCSOA is the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738(B) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001738---B000-.html). It pertains to support orders issued by U.S. states.

“'State' means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the territories and possessions of the United States, and Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18)."Sorry, but I see nothing in there having to do with foreign countries such as Costa Rica.

Now, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act is interesting. It's possible C.R. might be considered a "state" under the provisions of that act if it "has enacted a law or established procedures for issuance and enforcement of support orders that are substantially similar to the procedures under this chapter or under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act or the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act".

But if, arguendo, a U.S. court would consider C.R. to be such a "state" (so as to cause the U.S. state court to "back off" and decline jurisdiction) , Costa Rica very well might not have personal jurisdiction over the father. The section of the UIFSA I am reading says:

" Bases for jurisdiction over nonresident.
In a proceeding to establish, enforce, or modify a support order or to determine parentage, a tribunal of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident individual or the individual's guardian or conservator if
(1) the individual is personally served with a citation, summons, or notice within this state;
(2) the individual submits to the jurisdiction of this state by consent, by entering a general appearance, or by filing a responsive document having the effect of waiving any contest to personal jurisdiction;
(3) the individual resided with the child in this state;
(4) the individual resided in this state and provided prenatal expenses or support for the child;
(5) the child resides in this state as a result of the acts or directives of the individual;
(6) the individual engaged in sexual intercourse in this state and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse;
(7) the individual acknowledged parentage in a writing deposited with the Bureau of Vital Statistics under AS 25.20.050 ; or
(8) there is another basis consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States for the exercise of personal jurisdiction."
So it's conceivable that a father sued for CS in P.R. could get the case dismissed, if in fact he was never in that country.



You might want to check this link as it refers to Costa Rica and others as being treated as a "State".


Ref:
QUESTION 1: What are the IV-D agency's responsibilities when providing services to foreign reciprocating countries?

RESPONSE: Under section 454(32)(A) of the Act, each state plan for child and spousal support must “provide that any request for services under this part by a foreign reciprocating country or a foreign country with which the State has an arrangement…shall be treated as a request by a state.” In addition, section 454(32)(C) of the Act provides that “no applications will be required from, and no costs will be assessed for such services against, the foreign reciprocating country or foreign obligee (but costs may at State option be assessed against the obligor).”


Ref: (complete text on how to deal with foreign orders)

PIQ-04-01, Processing Cases with Foreign Reciprocating Countries (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/PIQ/2004/piq-04-01.htm)

...
But I think you are missing the point here and going at this from the back end. Before a court can hear a case, they have to have jurisdiction over the matter. So unless the child is a legal resident of the state then that state's courts do not have jurisdiction. It doesn't matter where the child resides as long as its not within the jurisdiction. So even if the FL court agreed to hear the case, the father should be able to get it thrown out on those grounds.

And the fact that CS has a reciprocal agreement with the US (thanks Califdad) makes it even more clear that the support case has to be filed there.

And while FFCCSOA does primarily deal with interstate support orders, it also deals with where the orders should originate and even has provisions dealing with international issues.

I am guessing that the OP is no longer "listening". It's probably all over his head.

If I were representing the dad in a U.S. state court, I would need, in order to get the case dismissed, more than what you have referred to:

A FAQ from a state website (I know those folks and, believe me, they say things which they cannot back up all the time.)
A reference to FFCCSOA - I looked at it several times and, no, it says nothing about foreign countries.
URESA is framed in terms of concurrent jurisdiction, not exclusive jurisdiction, and in fact suggests that, depending on circumstances of the case, C.R. would not have jurisdiction.
The fact that C.R. has a recipricity agreement with the U.S. - It appears that such an agreement simply provides mechanisms for governmental CS agencies cooperating with each other. Such an agreement does nothing to deprive states of jurisdiction to decide CS cases.