dcl9343.htm

Differences between URESA & UIFSA

DC-9343

September 8, 1993

TO ALL STATE IV-D DIRECTORS

Dear Colleague:

As you know, while some States continue to use the (Revised) Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act [R)URESA], others have passed legislation which enables them to use a new interstate law entitled the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). To assist States in the use of both laws in interstate case processing, we are providing the enclosure entitled A Summary of the Differences between the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.

This "primer" provides the highlights of UIFSA and a reference chart which summarizes the differences between UIFSA and (R)URESA. This chart can be quickly consulted to determine the variances between UIFSA and URESA and should assist you and your staff in interstate case processing.

Sincerely,

Robert C. Harris

Acting Deputy Director

Office of Child Support

Enforcement

Enclosure

A Summary of the Differences Between the Revised

Uniformed Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act and

The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

Office of Child Support Enforcement

September 1993

A SUMMARY OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

THE REVISED UNIFORM RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT

OF SUPPORT ACT AND

THE UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT

Linda Ann Hammond

Assistant Staff Director

Child Support Project

Center on Children and the Law

American Bar Association

THE UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT

THE NEXT STEP IN IMPROVING

INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT COLLECTIONS

INTRODUCTION

In 1950, the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) was a revolutionary effort to address the problem of nonpayment of family support by interstate obligors. After more than 40 years of experience in interstate collections, numerous technological advances, and three subsequent versions of URESA, a much different interstate law has been developed for State consideration.

The new interstate law is entitled the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). It is intended to replace the original and Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Acts (RURESA).

The highlights of UIFSA are described below. Following the narrative account is a chart which briefly summarizes the differences between UIFSA and RURESA. This Reference Chart can be quickly consulted to determine the variances between UIFSA and URESA. The highlights and chart are intended to be an introduction or an overview, not a replacement for exhaustive legal research and analysis. If one requires more detailed information? please refer to the model uniform acts found at Unif. Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1950 Act)(amended 1952, 1958), 9 B U.L.A. 553 (1987); Revised Unif. Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1968 Act), 9 B.U.L.A. 381 (1987); Unif. Interstate Family Support. Act, 9 Part 1 U.L.A 77 (Supp. 1993).

UIFSA HIGHLIGHTS

The One Order Theory

Only One Order in a Case at One Time. Under RURESA, most support proceedings are de novo (that is, treated as new cases), resulting in more than one valid, co-existing order in a case. This has often caused confusion when calculating arrearages or determining which order to enforce. To solve this dilemma under UIFSA there is only one support order in effect in a case at any one time. This is referred to as the one order theory or the one order - one time concept.

Rules are set forth to determine which order should prevail if several orders were rendered prior to the enactment of UIFSA. See Section 207 of UIFSA for the specifics. Rules also exist for resolving actions pending in two or more States, which basically require that one State defer to another, taking intoconsideration where the child has lived for the prior six months. See Section 204 for details. Last, the Act requires that States treat interstate multiple order cases (for two or more families supported by the same obligor) as they would in-state multiple order cases.

Continuing, Exclusive Jurisdiction. The method used to enforce the one order theory is to allow only one State the right to change the order at any one time. The one State with this right has "continuing, exclusive jurisdiction" over the case. The State with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order is the State that issued the order.

Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction endures so long as one party or child resides in the State unless the individual parties agree in writing to take their case to another State.

If the parties no longer reside in the issuing State or if a written agreement exists regarding jurisdiction the Act establishes registration procedures for modification. See the section on "Registration for Modification" below.

There is greater access to relevant evidence without the expense of transporting documents and witnesses from one State to another.

UIFSA also eases some evidentiary rules as to materials typically needed in child support cases: certain documents given under oath by a party or witness residing in another State, copies of payment records certified as true copies by the custodian of records, parentage testing hills, and health care bills relating to the birth of the child are all admissible into evidence.

A User-Friendly Law

UIFSA provides a number of very practical improvements to ease interstate support collection practices. The Act recognizes administrative agencies as well as tribunals for processing cases. Initiation of a case is made ministerial rather than a matter of tribunal review, so no certification is required. A party can choose to file directly with the responding State, bypassing initiating jurisdiction procedures.

There are more benefits to the parties. Parties have greater access to information on their cases because of the timeframes established for acting on cases, and because of the many notice requirement contained in the law. For the first time, remedies are available to both parties, obligors as well as obligees. UIFSA does not address issues of attorney/client relationshipswith obligors and obligees, however. The Act also clearly authorizes representation by private attorneys, including recovery of attorney fees.

Finally, the Act clearly authorizes establishing paternity without seeking support.

REFERENCE CHART

TOPIC UIFSA RURESA

ESTABLISHMENT ISSUES

Paternity

Clearly authorizes establishment of parentage in an interstate proceeding even if not coupled with proceeding to establish support.Authorizes paternity establishment but unclear whether action must

be coupled with support proceeding.

Temporary Support

Provides for temporary support No analogous provision.

order based on paternity acknowledgment

or other clear and convincing evidence

(e.g., genetic test results) that

defendant is child's parent.

Long-Arm Jurisdiction

Provides for long-arm jurisdiction No analogous provision.

over nonresident up to limits of

Kulko. Includes long-arm paternity

action based upon obligor's conduct

within the State.

Type of Orders That May Be Established

May only be used for proceedings involving support of child or spouse (i"e., not support of a parent)."Obligee" is anyone to whom a duty of support is owed.

ENFORCEMENT ISSUES

Direct Enforcement

Provides for two "direct enforcement" No analogous provisions.

procedures:

1.Income withholding order may be mailed directly to obligor's employer in another State which triggers wage withholding unlessemployee objects. (Current federal regulations requires interstate income withholding request in IV-D cases to go through a responding State's central registry).

2. Direct administrative enforcement by obligor's

State if same is available for intrastate cases.

CHOICE OF LAW ISSUES

Determination of Support Duty

Apply law of responding State. In long-arm cases, the State conducting

the hearing is defined as the responding State. If parentage previously determined pursuant to law, nonparentage may not be raised as a defense.Apply law of State where obligor present for period of time when support is sought. Law of responding State presumed to apply.

Determination of Support Amount

Apply guidelines of the responding Apply guidelines of the

State. responding State.

Enforcement of Support Order

Procedure and law of the responding State apply as to enforcement issues, EXCEPT:

1. Law of the issuing State governs interpretation of order being enforced.

Complex choice of law (i"e., apply the law of the State where the obligor was present for the period during which support issought). Otherwise, the

law of the responding State.

2. If issuing and responding States

have different statutes of

limitations for enforcement the

longer time period applies.

EVIDENTIARY PROVISIONS

Electronic Information Transfer

Authorizes electronic information No analogous provision.

transfer; testimony or deposition

by telephone conference; and inter-

state discovery.

Records

Copy of payment records from No analogous provision.

another State, copy of health care

bill and facsimile copies are

admissible into evidence.

Communications Between Tribunals

Tribunals of different States No analogous provision.

may communicate with each other to

obtain information about laws of other

State or orders of other tribunal.

Private Attorney Access

Explicitly authorized including Authorized, but no mention

attorney fees. of attorney fees.

Reciprocity

Not required: URESA, RURESA, and Required by law.

all substantially similar State laws

are deemed equivalent to UIFSA.

Availability of Remedies

URESA remedies available to both URESA remedies available

obligors and obligees. only to obligees.

Costs and Fees

Both obligor and obligee may file without payment of costs and fees. Continues RURESA rule that only obligor may beassessed costs and fees.

Costs and fees assessed against obligor only. No free fling to obligor.

Representation

Act does not create or negate any Prosecuting attorney upon

relationship law. attorney/client request of

tribunal or look to other

State Dept. of Welfare shall

represent obligee.

Transition Where Multiple Orders Exist

Priority established:

No analogous provision.

1. Order issued by tribunal with

continuing exclusive jurisdiction

as defined by Act.

2. If more than one tribunal would

have continuing exclusive jurisdiction

order issued by child's home State.

3. If more than one tribunal would

have continuing exclusive jurisdiction

but no home State, the most recent

order has priority.

4. If no tribunal would have continuing

exclusive jurisdiction under Act

responding State may issue new support

order and becomes continuing, exclusive

jurisdiction.