D. Modifying a Support Order

1. REGISTRATION. The first step for a party (whether obligor or obligee) requesting a tribunal of another State to modify an existing child support order is to follow the identical procedure for registration as when enforcement is sought. All modification requests are subject to strict rules, infra, although different sequences are allowable: i.e., registration for enforcement and a later request for modification; or, a request for contemporaneous modification and enforcement.

2. MODIFICATION STATUTORILY RESTRICTED. Under UIFSA, the only tribunal that can modify a support order is one having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the support issue. As an initial matter, this is the tribunal that first acquires personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and the support obligation. If modification of the order by the issuing tribunal is no longer appropriate, another tribunal may become vested with the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction necessary to modify the order. Primarily this occurs when neither the individual parties nor the child reside in the issuing State, or when the parties agree in a record that another tribunal may assume modification jurisdiction. Only then may another tribunal with personal jurisdiction over the parties assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction and have jurisdiction to modify the order, Sections 205, 206, 603(c), 609-612. Further, except for modification by agreement, Section 205 and 207, or when the parties have all moved to the same new State, Section 613, the party petitioning for modification must be a nonresident of the responding State and must submit himself or herself to the forum State, which must have personal jurisdiction over the respondent, Section 611. The vast majority of the time this is the State in which the respondent resides. A colloquial short-hand summary of the principle is that ordinarily the movant for modification of a child support order "must play an away game."

A 2001 amendment adds that even if the parties and child have moved from the issuing State they may agree that the tribunal that issued the controlling order will continue to exercise its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, Section 205. This recognizes the fact that it may be preferable for the parties to return to a tribunal familiar with the issues rather than to be required to fully inform another tribunal of all the facts and issues that have been previously litigated. This exception may be