Ask Me Help Desk - Which state has jurisdiction over child support?

I need some help getting a child support order entered.
I live in Michigan with the kids. The divorce was finalized in August 2011 with no child support order entered. The judge stated that Michigan did not have jurisdiction over my ex-husband to enforce the support order and therefore could not legally enter one.

So who does have jurisdiction?

1. We moved from Michigan to Oklahoma for work.
2. Child #1 was conceived and born in Oklahoma.
3. We left Oklahoma and moved to Wisconsin.
4. Child #2 was conceived and born in Wisconsin.
5. We separated during pregnancy #2- he moved to Tennessee.
6. I moved with both children from Wisconsin back to Michigan.
7. He left Tennessee and started bouncing from place to place.
8. He no longer maintains a legal residence anywhere. He works farm harvest. The travel is similar to what an over the road truck driver does.
9. He doesn't have a driver's license and I highly highly doubt he has filed a tax return since we separated. So I can't use either of those to determine residency. The times I've needed to mail him anything, he's given me an address to use, I send it out priority, and he makes sure to stay there long enough to receive it.

Any help would be appreciated. I haven't had much luck finding a lawyer to take this on.

I think the judge is just passing the buck. Jurisdiction for Child support is usually the home state of the children. The only way some other state might have jurisdiction if an order was originally issues in another state and the father still resides there. I just don't understand why the judge thinks MI does not have jurisdiction to issue a support order.

On the other hand, the probability of collecting on any support order seems to be extremely small. Without a steady job, unless he wants to pay voluntarily I don't see a way to force him. That may also explain not being able to get a lawyer to handle this, since there seems little chance of you collecting support.

I had a lawyer to help get the judgement of divorce entered. My first attempt going before the judge by myself was rejected. She said that she couldn't finalize the divorce without a child support order. So I found a lawyer that would go back to court with me. Attempt #2 before the judge got the divorce finalized but she wouldn't budge on the child support issue. Her sticking point was that the father never lived in Michigan with the kids and because of that she didn't have the long-arm jurisdiction required under the UIFSA to enforce the order.

I've spoken with a few different lawyers now and they don't want to take on the case - basically because they don't think they will be able to convince the judge to enter the order when the first lawyer couldn't.

You're right I wouldn't be able to collect on the order at this point. He hasn't sent a dime in the three years since I last saw him so he quite obviously isn't going to pay voluntarily. I'd like to get something entered so that I can collect at some point, if/when he does get a standard job.

Where the children were born has no bearing on this, where he lives now has no bearing on this.

Where you live now and how long you have lived there.

You will have to had lived in Mich ( think that is your ,current state) long enough to establish residency. At that point you may file in that stated. Father does not ever had to live with kids, many don't, Sounds like a bad call and the attorney should have appealed with case law to prove the point

Quote:

Originally Posted by armychicmkm

. Her sticking point was that the father never lived in Michigan with the kids and because of that she didn't have the long-arm jurisdiction required under the UIFSA to enforce the order.

This makes no sense: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform...ly_Support_Act
The Act establishes rules requiring every state to defer to child support orders entered by the state courts of the child's home state. The place where the order was originally entered holds continuing exclusive jurisdiction (CEJ), and only the law of that state can be applied to requests to modify the order of child support, unless the original tribunal loses CEJ under the Act.

As I said, jurisdiction rests with the children's Home state since no previous order was issued. Usually that means where they have resided for the last 6 months. So I can't imagine what this judge is thinking of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottGem

This makes no sense: From Uniform Interstate Family Support Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Act establishes rules requiring every state to defer to child support orders entered by the state courts of the child's home state. The place where the order was originally entered holds continuing exclusive jurisdiction (CEJ), and only the law of that state can be applied to requests to modify the order of child support, unless the original tribunal loses CEJ under the Act.

That's what the lawyer tried to argue. Then the judge asked to speak with him in her chambers. They came back out and 5 minutes later I was divorced with no child support.

I can't explain it. The law is clear so I don't know what the judge is thinking. But as I said, its not a big deal since I doubt if you would be able to collect anyway.