[lizzy 531]

If the mom children live in Arizona and the father moved to New York can the state of Arizona modify the child support order on their own what does the request come from the mother

[AK lawyer]

The State or Arizona or the court in Arizona? There is a difference.

If the request (motion filed in court) came from the mother, sure, the court can modify the child support amount, assuming appropriate reasons are given. The fact that the father no longer lives in Arizona is of little consequence.

[cdad]

Is there a current support order and from what state did it come from ?

[JudyKayTee]

I don't understand why Arizona would modify a support order "on its own," without a request from either party. I don't understand "can the state of Arizona modify the child support order on their own what does the request come from the mother".

If the support order was issued in Arizona, yes, as "AK" said, where the father resides doesn't matter. Either party can apply for a change.

IF the support order was issued in a State other than NY or Arizona the following applies (this is a private site but it explains the process very clearly): Beaverton Family Law. Lawyers & Attorneys - # 60 - Modifying out-of-state child support orders. - LAWRENCE D. GORIN - Oregon Attorney & Lawyer - Justia

"Under UIFSA (The Federal Uniform Interstate Family Support Act )§ 205, as long as one of the individual parties, or the child, continues to reside in the state that issued the original support order (the “issuing state”), and as long as the parties do not agree to the contrary, the issuing tribunal has “continuing, exclusive jurisdiction” (CEJ) over its child-support order. This includes exclusive authority to modify the order, which in practical terms means that no other state may do so. The statute attempts to be even-handed. The identity of the remaining party—obligor or obligee—does not matter. If the individual parties have left the issuing State but the child remains behind, continuing, exclusive jurisdiction remains with the issuing State. Even if all parties and the child no longer reside in the State, the support order continues in existence and is fully enforceable unless and until a modification takes place in accordance with the requirements of UIFSA Article 6.

Under UIFSA § 611 [ORS 110.432], if a child support order issued by [one State] has been registered in a another State, a tribunal of [the state] in which the order was registered may modify the order only if, after notice and hearing the “registering tribunal” (as defined in UIFSA § 102) finds either that:

(1) (a) neither the child, nor the obligee who is an individual, nor the obligor resides in the issuing State;
AND (b) the party seeking modification is a nonresident of the state in which the modification is sought;
AND (c) the non-moving party (i.e. the party against whom the modification is sought) is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the tribunal of the state in which the modification is filed.
OR
(2) the State in which modification is sought is the State of residence of the child, or a party who is an individual is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the tribunal of the State in which modification is sought, and all of the parties who are individuals have filed consents in a record in the issuing tribunal for a tribunal of the registering state to modify the support order and then assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.

Thus, under UIFSA § 611 [ORS 110.432], before a tribunal in a new forum may modify the controlling order three specific criteria must be satisfied.

First, the individual parties affected by the controlling order and the child must no longer reside in the issuing State.

Second, the party seeking modification must register the order in a new forum, almost invariably the State of residence of the other party. A colloquial (but easily understood) description of this requirement is that the modification movant must “play an away game on the other party's home field.” This rule applies to either obligor or obligee, depending on which of those parties seeks to modify. Proof of the fact that neither individual party nor the child continues to reside in the issuing State may be made directly in the registering State; no purpose would be served by requiring the petitioner to return to the original issuing State for a document to confirm the fact that none of the relevant persons still lives there.

Third, the forum must have personal jurisdiction over the parties. This is supplied by the movant submitting to the personal jurisdiction of the forum by seeking affirmative relief, almost always coupled with the fact that the respondent resides in the forum. On rare occasion, the personal jurisdiction over the respondent may be supplied by other factors, see UIFSA § 201 and the official comment thereto.

A registering tribunal has authority to modify a child support order if (1) the petitioner is not a resident of the registering State; the respondent is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the registering tribunal; and the original issuing State lacks CEJ because the child, individual obligee, and obligor no longer reside in the issuing State, or (2) an individual party or child is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the registering tribunal and all of the individual parties have filed written consent in the issuing State providing that the registering State can modify the order and assume CEJ."

[AK lawyer]

Very good discussion, JudyKayTee, but there is one minor point:

The Federal Uniform Interstate Family Support Act

Uniform acts such as the UIFSA are not Federal legislation (acts of Congress). They are state legislation enacted by one or more state liegislatures in a uniform manner.